NationStates Jolt Archive

And? Without a brain or even synapses it cannot feel pain or be conscious at any level, ergo: it is not a person. The synapses aren't in place until well into the third trimester.

God you really are stupid aren't you? The Brain developes during this time frame. By week 11 or 12, its synapsis forms. The baby's nerve cells are also rapidly growing as well.

And by week 14, Brain impulses gives the child's facial muscles a workout.

I am surprised you didn't ask him to back up his claim.

Its what we call child development while still in the womb.

Another thought you might not have considered... the population of America would sky-rocket, since ALL a couple would have to do would be to have sex while they were on holiday in the States... if they conceived, with the 'recognition' you suggest, it would be only fair to grant that newly conceived foetus the same rights you grant to a child born in the US... i.e. automatic citizenship.

Not to mention that from the moment of conception the fetus would be a US citizen. As the US has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens it would be obligated to prevent the mother from terminating the pregnancy. This would even hold true if she left the country; a state owned health service aborting the fetus could even be seen as an act of war (state-sanctioned murder of an American citizen).

God you really are stupid aren't you? The Brain developes during this time frame. By week 11 or 12, its synapsis forms. The baby's nerve cells are also rapidly growing as well.

And by week 14, Brain impulses gives the child's facial muscles a workout.
Prove it!:D

Another thought you might not have considered... the population of America would sky-rocket, since ALL a couple would have to do would be to have sex while they were on holiday in the States... if they conceived, with the 'recognition' you suggest, it would be only fair to grant that newly conceived foetus the same rights you grant to a child born in the US... i.e. automatic citizenship.
whoa

maybe we can require that all women getting a visa to visit the US be injected with a very strong anti-ovulation drug or give proof of sterility/pre-existing pregnancy.

God you really are stupid aren't you? The Brain developes during this time frame. By week 11 or 12, its synapsis forms. The baby's nerve cells are also rapidly growing as well.

And by week 14, Brain impulses gives the child's facial muscles a workout.

Nice flaming. :rolleyes:

Now, prove it!

Prove it!:D

I see they don't teach this stuff in school anymore. Alwell. There are alot of prenatal websites out there. I'm looking at one called the Babycenter. I'll supply the address here as soon as I'm done taking randomlittleisland down.

Prove it!:D

Damn, you beat me to it! :p

Nice flaming. :rolleyes:

Now, prove it!

I'm sorry but I do not have an ultrasound photo to show you all the neat little stuff.

Not to mention that from the moment of conception the fetus would be a US citizen. As the US has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens it would be obligated to prevent the mother from terminating the pregnancy. This would even hold true if she left the country; a state owned health service aborting the fetus could even be seen as an act of war (state-sanctioned murder of an American citizen).
whoa, we would have to keep sexually active women in the country for all our sakes! one drunken night in an irish pub could cause ww3!

Thanks to brain impulses, her little facial muscles are getting a workout as she squints, frowns, and grimaces. She can grasp now, too, and she may be able to suck her thumb.

Week 14 (http://www.babycenter.com/mybabycenter/114.html)

Its what we call child development while still in the womb.

That's great. You've still not provided any proof to support your claims, hypocrite.

I see they don't teach this stuff in school anymore. Alwell. There are alot of prenatal websites out there. I'm looking at one called the Babycenter. I'll supply the address here as soon as I'm done taking randomlittleisland down.

Really? I've got a link of my own to show you:

Weeks 27 to 31 (29th to 33rd week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of about 38-43 cm (15-17 inches).
The fetus weighs about 2 kg (4 lb 6 oz).
The amount of body fat rapidly increases.
Rhythmic breathing movements occur, but lungs are not fully mature.
Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form.
Bones are fully developed, but are still soft and pliable.
The fetus begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development#Fetal_Development)

In case you didn't know the Thalamic brain connections are:

The thalamus (from Greek thálamos = bedroom, chamber) is a part of the brain. The two thalami are located in the center of the brain, one beneath each cerebral hemisphere and next to the third ventricle. Functionally the thalami can be thought of as relay stations for nerve impulses carrying sensory information into the brain; the thalami receive these sensory inputs as well as inputs from other parts of the brain and determine which of these signals to forward to the cerebral cortex.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus)

In other words, the fetus isn't conscious until they're in place.

*waits patiently to be 'taken down'*

I'm curious as to whether Corneliu has decided to support this ban or not. Certainly he's had plenty of time to "research" it.

whoa, we would have to keep sexually active women in the country for all our sakes! one drunken night in an irish pub could cause ww3!

You could always have an elite SWAT/ceasarian team on hand to 'extract' the proto-citizen if it was in danger. ;)

Week 14 (http://www.babycenter.com/mybabycenter/114.html)

Very sweet, but short on science.

Week 14 (http://www.babycenter.com/mybabycenter/114.html)

What's more:

Weeks 23 to 26 (25th to 28th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of 38 cm (15 inches).
The fetus weighs about 1.2 kg (2 lb 11 oz).
The brain develops rapidly.
The nervous system develops enough to control some body functions.
The eyelids open and close.
The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.
A baby born prematurely at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development#Fetal_Development)

*snip*

Be as that may, your missing a key point. The point is, that the baby is:

1) Breathing

2) Can move

3) Grasp

4) Suck

5) the heart is beating and is pumping blood

6) The Spleen is doing its business

7) The liver is making bile

All your focusing on is the brain. The brain is only one part in this entire process.

At the 16th week, the circulatory system starts to function on its own.

And you missed this part. At the 19th week, Hearing, Taste, Touch, smell, and sight are developing their spots in the brain. That is at the 19th week dude.

Very sweet, but short on science.

You do know that scientists figured this out don't you?

You could always have an elite SWAT/ceasarian team on hand to 'extract' the proto-citizen if it was in danger. ;)
im much to practical a person to fully participate in these "when does a fetus become a person" discussions.

i have to think of the end result of these proposals and if i dont like them, i cant possibly think they are correct.

to outlaw abortion is to put women as slaves to their reproductive systems.... well change that.. it would only put POOR women as slaves to their reproductive systems.

well-to-do women would still "go on a european vacation" or need a "DandC" (but not for abortions!). no child of one of these legistlators would EVER have a baby she didnt want. they would do what needed to be done and cover it up just like they did 35 years ago.

poor women and the teenaged child of a virulent anti-abortion activist would find themselves suddenly very clumsy (as they pitch themselves down a flight of stairs in an effort to abort) or they would end up risking their health and lives by going to an illegal practioner.

we would have orphanages again. the kind they had in romania *shudder* with too many babies for the overtaxed staff. the needs of the infertile who want to adopt would be filled in just the first year of unwanted babies. after that, well, few people want to adopt a baby every year until they have a dozen. (although we would force a woman to bear a child every year until she has a dozen or dies getting there)


no thanks. ill keep what we have.

Be as that may, your missing a key point. The point is, that the baby is:

1) Breathing

2) Can move

3) Grasp

4) Suck

5) the heart is beating and is pumping blood

6) The Spleen is doing its business

7) The liver is making bile

All your focusing on is the brain. The brain is only one part in this entire process.

At the 16th week, the circulatory system starts to function on its own.

And you missed this part. At the 19th week, Hearing, Taste, Touch, smell, and sight are developing their spots in the brain. That is at the 19th week dude.

LMAO! :p 'The brain is only one part of the entire process'. Yes, but quite an important part. Without a functioning brain a human is merely an empty shell, not a person.

And:

Weeks 23 to 26 (25th to 28th week of pregnancy)
The fetus reaches a length of 38 cm (15 inches).
The fetus weighs about 1.2 kg (2 lb 11 oz).
The brain develops rapidly.
The nervous system develops enough to control some body functions.
The eyelids open and close.
The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.
A baby born prematurely at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high.

In other words the movements aren't intended, they're reflex type actions and not an indication of consciousness.

Snipo*

You and I can go around on this all day. Frankly, we're going in circles here.

im much to practical a person to fully participate in these "when does a fetus become a person" discussions.

i have to think of the end result of these proposals and if i dont like them, i cant possibly think they are correct.

to outlaw abortion is to put women as slaves to their reproductive systems.... well change that.. it would only put POOR women as slaves to their reproductive systems.

well-to-do women would still "go on a european vacation" or need a "DandC" (but not for abortions!). no child of one of these legistlators would EVER have a baby she didnt want. they would do what needed to be done and cover it up just like they did 35 years ago.

poor women and the teenaged child of a virulent anti-abortion activist would find themselves suddenly very clumsy (as they pitch themselves down a flight of stairs in an effort to abort) or they would end up risking their health and lives by going to an illegal practioner.

we would have orphanages again. the kind they had in romania *shudder* with too many babies for the overtaxed staff. the needs of the infertile who want to adopt would be filled in just the first year of unwanted babies. after that, well, few people want to adopt a baby every year until they have a dozen. (although we would force a woman to bear a child every year until she has a dozen or dies getting there)


no thanks. ill keep what we have.

I can't see how anyone can think a ban on abortion will be good in practical terms.

I recently started studying moral philosophy and, while it is a little harder, it is fairly straight forward to defend abortion on ethical grounds as well.

I have yet to meet a pro-life Atheist. If there are any then they are in a tiny minority.

*curious about something*
When, exactly, is someone declared dead? Is it when their brain stops functioning?

If someone is dead upon brain death, wouldn't it be the case that they aren't alive until "brain birth"?

Just some idle musing...

You and I can go around on this all day. Frankly, we're going in circles here.

Only because you are blindly denying the truth:

1. Personhood requires consciousness.
2. Consciousness requires a working brain and synapses.
3. A fetus has no synapses until about week 20, and the brain doesn't function properly until most of the way into the third trimester.
4. Therefore a fetus is not a person until that point.

Is it really that difficult?

*curious about something*
When, exactly, is someone declared dead? Is it when their brain stops functioning?

If someone is dead upon brain death, wouldn't it be the case that they aren't alive until "brain birth"?

Just some idle musing...

*hands Poison a cookie*

Why would we do that? Immediately you did that, you would remove the right of a mother to have an abortion EVEN WHERE it was medically necessary. Not only that, but you could actually start to do such ridiculous things as legislating whether or not the 'mother-to-be' was allowed to... drive a car, drink coffee... eat at McDonalds.

We already regulate what pregnant women consume, and we hold them liable for their actions during pregnancy, such as, narcotics and maybe if a child suffers from severe infant alcohol syndrome. If it ever goes far as to include unhealthy choices, like smoking and a diet consisting of entirely artifically flavored lard, then that will be an issue in and of itself, seperate from the abortion issue.

You cannot, in any civilised way, have a situation where two people claim one 'body'... and that is exactly what you would have, if you granted a foetus 'person' status.

Sure we can. Temporary required responsibility for of ones self health.

Another thought you might not have considered... the population of America would sky-rocket, since ALL a couple would have to do would be to have sex while they were on holiday in the States... if they conceived, with the 'recognition' you suggest, it would be only fair to grant that newly conceived foetus the same rights you grant to a child born in the US... i.e. automatic citizenship.

The population of America would not sky rocket, only about a million abortions a year occur now. I suspect that after an initial surge birth rates might recover quickly to current rates (with better application and development of anti-ovulating medications for women and the need for anti-sperm producing male medications, the demand for such will quickly become far more requested and thus, more popular. Much more research money will then be put into it, reducing the overall 'unwanted' pregnancy occurrences).

As to the immigration and US born citizenship laws, that's a different topic, there are bills today to change even the automatic 'born-in-America' clause (which I happen to be against changing, but thats a different issue). But the point is, that's a different topic.

You and I can go around on this all day. Frankly, we're going in circles here.
would it make you feel better to know that the vast majority of abortions are done before 8 weeks?

later abortions happen because of bad news about the fetus' or the mother's health. 3rd trimester abortions are for emergencies.

women dont just wake up one day feeling their "baby" move and say "i think ill kill it". they do it for compellling reasons that are none of my, yours or the states business. its best kept between her, her family (if she chooses) and her doctor.

*curious about something*
When, exactly, is someone declared dead? Is it when their brain stops functioning?

If someone is dead upon brain death, wouldn't it be the case that they aren't alive until "brain birth"?

Just some idle musing...
Yes but usually the people opposing abortion, want to keep vegetables on life support until eternity too.

Only because you are blindly denying the truth:

1. Personhood requires consciousness.
2. Consciousness requires a working brain and synapses.
3. A fetus has no synapses until about week 20, and the brain doesn't function properly until most of the way into the third trimester.
4. Therefore a fetus is not a person until that point.

Is it really that difficult?

Actually, no I"m not blinded by facts and no it isn't difficult at all.

I recently started studying moral philosophy and, while it is a little harder, it is fairly straight forward to defend abortion on ethical grounds as well.


im my rather cynical opinion no one keeps a philosophy whose implications they dont like. they rather start with the outcome they want, for example "women need reproductive freedom" and work it until they come up with a philosophy that allows it.

would it make you feel better to know that the vast majority of abortions are done before 8 weeks?

later abortions happen because of bad news about the fetus' or the mother's health. 3rd trimester abortions are for emergencies.

women dont just wake up one day feeling their "baby" move and say "i think ill kill it". they do it for compellling reasons that are none of my, yours or the states business. its best kept between her, her family (if she chooses) and her doctor.

To me, abortion should only happen if the health of the mother is at risk or in the case of rape and incest as I stated previously.

Having an abortion because the people didn't use protection is not an excuse or if they did use protection and it failed, its still not an excuse to get one. That is why I applaud the US Congress for passing their late term abortion bill (which is what it is despite the title).

Actually, no I"m not blinded by facts and no it isn't difficult at all.

Would you like to explain which part of the statement you disagree with?

1. Personhood requires consciousness. (evidenced by the medical definition of death (i.e. one must be brain dead before one can be considered dead).

2. Consciousness requires a working brain and synapses. (need I say more?)

3. A fetus has no synapses until about week 20, and the brain doesn't function properly until most of the way into the third trimester. (evidenced by previously posted Wikipedia articles).

4. Therefore a fetus is not a person until that point. (evidenced by previous points)

Be as that may, your missing a key point. The point is, that the baby is:

1) Breathing
2) Can move
3) Grasp
4) Suck
5) the heart is beating and is pumping blood
6) The Spleen is doing its business
7) The liver is making bile

All your focusing on is the brain. The brain is only one part in this entire process.

Suppose I open up your skull, scoop out your brain and destroy it. I then replace your brain by machines capable of keeping the vital functions active- heart stays beating, liver keeps working, lungs keep processing oxygen etc.

Is the body lying there still Corneliu ? Is it even still a person ?
If you say yes, you can claim abortion indeed kills persons and be logically consistent.

To me, abortion should only happen if the health of the mother is at risk or in the case of rape and incest as I stated previously.

Having an abortion because the people didn't use protection is not an excuse or if they did use protection and it failed, its still not an excuse to get one. That is why I applaud the US Congress for passing their late term abortion bill (which is what it is despite the title).
oh so you went through all that trouble to dig up statistics that you dont care about.

interesting

so you want babies to be the punishment for women having sex.

late term abortions arent done on whim. they are done for emergencies.

Be as that may, your missing a key point. The point is, that the baby is:

1) Breathing

2) Can move

3) Grasp

4) Suck

5) the heart is beating and is pumping blood

6) The Spleen is doing its business

7) The liver is making bile

All your focusing on is the brain. The brain is only one part in this entire process.

At the 16th week, the circulatory system starts to function on its own.

And you missed this part. At the 19th week, Hearing, Taste, Touch, smell, and sight are developing their spots in the brain. That is at the 19th week dude.

Its all very special that you are focusing on events beyond the 14th week of pregnancy. Fewer than 10% of all abortion occur at that late a stage.

Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm):

59% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <13 weeks (Table 6). Overall (40 reporting areas), 25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks.

Those few abortions that occur in the later weeks are due to medical necessity.

So, thank Corny, for proving that the object of almost all abortions is not a person.

You and I can go around on this all day. Frankly, we're going in circles here.
Totally, who fucking cares if the fetus is living or dead anyway? People killed in wars are certainly alive, but only anti-war freaks call it murder that should be banned.

To me, abortion should only happen if the health of the mother is at risk or in the case of rape and incest as I stated previously.

Having an abortion because the people didn't use protection is not an excuse or if they did use protection and it failed, its still not an excuse to get one. That is why I applaud the US Congress for passing their late term abortion bill (which is what it is despite the title).

Of course, the late term abortion bill in question that you support doesn't have exceptions for if the mother is at risk or in the case of rape or incest.

But consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds, I guess.

This is ridiculous. How can you say that the fetus is not human. It's a medical FACT. It is very small and simple, but it has a soul and will develop into an adult. Quite frankly I find it ridiculous that its simplicity makes it an object to murder at will. OF COURSE it isnt conscious, but it will be, just as I am unconcious when I am asleep. Do you think that anyone asleep should be mudered?
Also, begging your most august pardons, how is the pro-life movement "imposing its morallity" unjustly. ALL LAWS IMPOSE MORALITY.

The only way to be logically pro-death is to be an anarchist who believes that the human person has no value. GOD BLESS SOUTH DAKOTA.

This is ridiculous. How can you say that the fetus is not human. It's a medical FACT. It is very small and simple, but it has a soul and will develop into an adult. Quite frankly I find it ridiculous that its simplicity makes it an object to murder at will. OF COURSE it isnt conscious, but it will be, just as I am unconcious when I am asleep. Do you think that anyone asleep should be mudered?
Also, begging your most august pardons, how is the pro-life movement "imposing its morallity" unjustly. ALL LAWS IMPOSE MORALITY.

The only way to be logically pro-death is to be an anarchist who believes that the human person has no value. GOD BLESS SOUTH DAKOTA.
well arent you sweet to come in after 339 posts, not read a single one, and assume that your point hasnt been made already.

the fetus is human but its not a person, its alive but its not a baby.

so when does this "soul" enter the "baby"? at fertilization? should we be impounding all sexually active women just in case their last act of sexual intercourse made a new person? what if she unknowingly does something that prevents implantation?? that means manslaughter!!

I’ve said earlier, and I’ll restate it here: The attempt to answer when the ‘human’ enters the pre-born, by the definition of the pro-choice or anti-choice side, is to assign a positive or a negative connotations to different aspects of what occurs during the early weeks of development. But when a fetus is a human (if ever), or is not a human (if it is ever not), is likely (IMO) to end up less like a macro-physics 2+2=4 question and is far more likely to end up being more like a question with quantum physics type of an answer.

Like the proverbial quark is a cat in a box example, it’s there if we don’t look but it’s gone if we open the box and peek. We can know how fast the sub-atomic particle is moving but not tell you where it is, OR we can tell you where it is but not tell you how fast it is going. But we can’t tell you both simultaneously. Similarly, if we stop the fetus development in a picture frame and measure it and analyze it, we can determine exactly where along the process it is physically, but we didn’t tell you how fast it was growing (moving). But if we don’t open the box and instead wait, we can see how fast it is moving by the results of it's growth in hindsight. The 'fetus-baby-humanity' could be both there and not there, simultaneously, depending on if you try to measure it or not.

And with that as my conclusion, I find it irrelevant to argue about when or when not, humanity is in the fetus. It is what it is. It’s not a tumor or a cancer cell, as some would argue, it is not a fully developed citizen deserving of it’s own social security number (yet). I suspect it is worth protecting though, IMO.

Of course, the late term abortion bill in question that you support doesn't have exceptions for if the mother is at risk or in the case of rape or incest.

But consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds, I guess.

I see no point in you throwing deliberate 'insults' around. You could have said the exact same thing without including the personal attack on him by implying he has a 'lesser mind.'

This is ridiculous. How can you say that the fetus is not human. It's a medical FACT.

Human =/= Person

It is very small and simple, but it has a soul and will develop into an adult.

Pure speculation, the soul cannot be proven. What's more, the Bible says that the soul is in the blood so presumably abortion is acceptable before there is circulation?

Quite frankly I find it ridiculous that its simplicity makes it an object to murder at will.

It isn't murder if it isn't a person.

OF COURSE it isnt conscious, but it will be, just as I am unconcious when I am asleep.

Don't be naive. They're totally different definitions.

Do you think that anyone asleep should be mudered?

:rolleyes:

Also, begging your most august pardons, how is the pro-life movement "imposing its morallity" unjustly. ALL LAWS IMPOSE MORALITY.

But pro-lifers do so without any logical basis for the law. Imagine the outrage if Muslims demanded that all women must wear a Burkha whatever their religion.

The only way to be logically pro-death is to be an anarchist who believes that the human person has no value. GOD BLESS SOUTH DAKOTA.

Yep, which is why I'm not pro-death, just pro-choice.

Great! About time someone challanged that murderous law. Always makes me smile when I see one of the very few conservative beliefs that I support actually go somewhere. Still, despite the new justices, the Supreme Court is known to dodge controversial issues and I'm sure this law will get slapped down in Appellate Court anyway. I doubt this will go anywhere.

Well, to be honest. I agree with you somewhat. I hope it does go to the Supreme Court and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

It will be the death of the Republican party for all of our lifetimes.

Well, to be honest. I agree with you somewhat. I hope it does go to the Supreme Court and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

It will be the death of the Republican party for all of our lifetimes.

Yep, imagine losing 90% of the female vote in one fell swoop.

Well, to be honest. I agree with you somewhat. I hope it does go to the Supreme Court and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

It will be the death of the Republican party for all of our lifetimes.
it certainly would throw states like south dakota, texas and kansas into chaos.

its easy to be against abortion when its legal. when your little 15 year old angel gets knocked up and she cant get an abortion, your perspective changes.

Yep, imagine losing 90% of the female vote in one fell swoop.
It's amazing to me that so few people understand that what South Dakota really did here was tell their entire female population that they're too stupid to make decisions about their reproductive systems, and that damnit, they're going to save them from themselves.

Not in the post I was replying to.
Then you clearly didn't read the post.


The point of that post was, "Do it or you go to jail" = slavery.
The only way to get that from the post is to have not read the post.

( It is a matter of choice. Those who believe abortion is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.)


This argument is horrible...lets say i believe in mass human sacrifice to my god Sqallah,
False analogy. A fetus has no rights.

You might want to heed your own advice.
I have. I know what rights are. Please read up about contractarianism, especially the works of David Gauthier and Jan Narveson.

Oh My God!

You really are ignorant aren't you?
*laughs*

You have no idea how ignorant you are, bubby.


Anything can be taken away my friend. There are ways to take them away.
No--there are only ways to INFRINGE upon rights.

I suggest you read up about contractarianism. Might help to know something about the topic you're trying to expound upon. I, OTOH, know more about this than you could ever hope to. So please don't be a poseur.

It's amazing to me that so few people understand that what South Dakota really did here was tell their entire female population that they're too stupid to make decisions about their reproductive systems, and that damnit, they're going to save them from themselves.

NS conducted a gender-specific pro-choice vs. pro-life poll not that long ago. Can anyone remember the result?

Yes they did.
No, they did not.


I actually suggest you learn what a right
*laughs*

Please read this: http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

Now apologize to me for the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about yet act as if you do.

That doesn't apply here, half of the people say two people are involved in an abortion,
They are wrong.

Suppose I open up your skull, scoop out your brain and destroy it. I then replace your brain by machines capable of keeping the vital functions active- heart stays beating, liver keeps working, lungs keep processing oxygen etc.

Is the body lying there still Corneliu ? Is it even still a person ?
If you say yes, you can claim abortion indeed kills persons and be logically consistent.

You've seen for yourself how important brain functions are to Corneliu's world view. Do you really think he'd miss it?

They are wrong.
That's right--there are at least three. The patient, the doctor, and the attending nurse. Four if there's an anesthesiologist.

Having said all that, I now present my argument for the justification in banning abortion:

Regardless of whether an early-stage fetus possesses intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness, the simple fact of the matter is that it is human; it is a separate entity all its own, possessing a genetic code that is unique, and, when left to grow and develop, will obtain the afore-mentioned intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness.
But it exists within the confines of a being that is intelligent, conscious, self-aware, and has self-ownership. The womb is the property of the mother--not the fetus.

To not allow abortion is to deny the right of self-ownership of the mother.

This is ridiculous. How can you say that the fetus is not human. It's a medical FACT.
That it is a human fetus is not germane; that it exists within the confines of a being with self-ownership is.

To deny the right of a woman to have an abortion is to turn the woman into a slave to the fetus. It's that simple.

btw, anarchism isn't what you think it is.

But it exists within the confines of a being that is intelligent, conscious, self-aware, and has self-ownership. The womb is the property of the mother--not the fetus.

To not allow abortion is to deny the right of self-ownership of the mother.

Abortion is a right, but looking after the _wholly seperate_ individual that's completely, and through no choice of its own, dependant on you for its very _existence_ - that's a responsibility.

It's up to the individual to weigh the rights and responsibilities here; society can educate that individual to make a 'good' decision for their own specific context, but society (through the state) can't be allowed to say which is more important, the right or the responsibility.

S, Dakota made a disgusting decision.

In which case, wouldn't the Supreme Court do best by keeping its nose out of it?

I am absolutely pro-choice, but I still do not get out to throw bombs at abortion protesters who are out there doing their constitutionally protected business.

I would expect that the Supreme Court would allow stare decisis to guide their future decisions on the subject.

Cheers,
Izzy

PS. Stare decisis (from the Latin for "let the decision stand")


Well, South Dakota's going to eventually experience one of or all of two things. Neither are incompatible with each other and may in fact compound:

1) An exodus of desperate women making Canadian Field Trips out of state to seek abortions just about elsewhere.

2) Small time or organized crime starting up an illegal abortion industry within South Dakota.

But it exists within the confines of a being that is intelligent, conscious, self-aware, and has self-ownership. The womb is the property of the mother--not the fetus.

To not allow abortion is to deny the right of self-ownership of the mother.
The womb is the property of the mother, but you didn't say that the fetus is -- it isn't. If you think that the fetus is the property of the mother, you, unfortunately, believe in a certain form of slavery.

Women have no reproductive rights. Rights come from God, not from man. It says so in the Declaration of Independence, which defines the general principles which Americans should believe (not that you have to, but you should): (1) There is a Creator God, (2) our Rights, such as the unborn baby's Right to Life, come from Him, and (3) the purpose of government is to protect and preserve those God-given rights.

Proof of the above statements: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...]" (The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html)).

Recent scientific studies show that a human life begins at conception -- and if you're religious you don't even need to know that, since at conception God gives the zygote a human soul. Taking away the unborn child's life is defined as murder, and our country was founded on Biblical law which holds murder to be a sin, which is why it's illegal. Abortion is, therefore, illegal under the Constitution.

And don't tell me that the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Write this on the inside of your eyelids: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW. It interprets the law, and it is perfectly capable of interpreting it incorrectly, which is what happened in Roe v. Wade by the Republican court. That's right, a so-called "conservative" court legalized prosecution for abortion. I am conservative, but the Republican Party is not.

Stare decisis, precedent, does not have to be upheld if the precedent contradicts logic (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=423) -- which, in my case, is anything that contradicts God's Law, but in your case may simply be that it's illogical to legalize murder just because the father and the mother do not want to take any responsibility for their sins, and would rather place all responsibility on the child -- which means murdering it. The unborn child should not be punished for the sins of his/her mother or father. I can understand that it is physically painful for a mother to have a child, but that pain is temporary. The pain of knowing that you murdered a baby is not only far worse than temporary physical pain, but lasts for your whole lifetime.

Elgesh']Abortion is a right

S[outh] Dakota made a disgusting decision.
Can you please show me where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence women are given the right to murder if the baby is inside of them? South Dakota, actually, finally made the Constitutional decision. They have a God-given right to overturn a SC decision -- as I said, stare decisis is not all-binding if the decision originally made was screwed up.

If you agree with everything that I just said, join the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/). If you do not, I pray that some day God may touch you so that you may become an American.

In which case, wouldn't the Supreme Court do best by keeping its nose out of it?

I am absolutely pro-choice, but I still do not get out to throw bombs at abortion protesters who are out there doing their constitutionally protected business.

I would expect that the Supreme Court would allow stare decisis to guide their future decisions on the subject.

Cheers,
Izzy

PS. Stare decisis (from the Latin for "let the decision stand")You're assuming, of course, that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts will have respect for the previous decisions. What you're basing that assumption is beyond me, however.

I see no point in you throwing deliberate 'insults' around. You could have said the exact same thing without including the personal attack on him by implying he has a 'lesser mind.'

1. If you read carefully, I did not imply that Corny has a lesser mind. I said a lesser mind would be consistent, whereas Corny was not being consistent. Thus, I was being ironic.

2. I was paraphrasing a famous quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

3. Please don't make unwarranted accusations that I have deliberately insulted someone.

The womb is the property of the mother, but you didn't say that the fetus is -- it isn't. If you think that the fetus is the property of the mother, you, unfortunately, believe in a certain form of slavery.

Women have no reproductive rights. Rights come from God, not from man. It says so in the Declaration of Independence, which defines the general principles which Americans should believe (not that you have to, but you should): (1) There is a Creator God, (2) our Rights, such as the unborn baby's Right to Life, come from Him, and (3) the purpose of government is to protect and preserve those God-given rights.

Proof of the above statements: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...]" (The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html)).

Recent scientific studies show that a human life begins at conception -- and if you're religious you don't even need to know that, since at conception God gives the zygote a human soul. Taking away the unborn child's life is defined as murder, and our country was founded on Biblical law which holds murder to be a sin, which is why it's illegal. Abortion is, therefore, illegal under the Constitution.

And don't tell me that the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Write this on the inside of your eyelids: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW. It interprets the law, and it is perfectly capable of interpreting it incorrectly, which is what happened in Roe v. Wade by the Republican court. That's right, a so-called "conservative" court legalized prosecution for abortion. I am conservative, but the Republican Party is not.

Stare decisis, precedent, does not have to be upheld if the precedent contradicts logic (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=423) -- which, in my case, is anything that contradicts God's Law, but in your case may simply be that it's illogical to legalize murder just because the father and the mother do not want to take any responsibility for their sins, and would rather place all responsibility on the child -- which means murdering it. The unborn child should not be punished for the sins of his/her mother or father. I can understand that it is physically painful for a mother to have a child, but that pain is temporary. The pain of knowing that you murdered a baby is not only far worse than temporary physical pain, but lasts for your whole lifetime.


Can you please show me where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence women are given the right to murder if the baby is inside of them? South Dakota, actually, finally made the Constitutional decision. They have a God-given right to overturn a SC decision -- as I said, stare decisis is not all-binding if the decision originally made was screwed up.

If you agree with everything that I just said, join the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/). If you do not, I pray that some day God may touch you so that you may become an American.

*sigh*

1. Can you please show where God's Law forbids abortion? Good luck finding that in the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible supports abortion.

2. If you are going to be a constitutionalist, you should learn a little about the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is legally irrelevant.

3. The Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments protect fundamental rights, among them is the right to abortion.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life


--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

You're assuming, of course, that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts will have respect for the previous decisions. What you're basing that assumption is beyond me, however.

Although I share your fears, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood, which upheld Roe and waxed eloquent about stare decisis.

1. If you read carefully, I did not imply that Corny has a lesser mind. I said a lesser mind would be consistent, whereas Corny was not being consistent. Thus, I was being ironic.

2. I was paraphrasing a famous quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

3. Please don't make unwarranted accusations that I have deliberately insulted someone.

I said you implied an insult at him, and you did. You implied that he had a lesser mind. The where’s and how’s of it are irrelevant, despite whom you quote or did not quote, you quoted and referenced to imply insult. You can try to show a reason to think that there is some shadow of a doubt of your guilt, but even if acquitted, that doesn't prove innocence of the crime, as I'm sure you know well enough yourself already.

That it is a human fetus is not germane; that it exists within the confines of a being with self-ownership is.

To deny the right of a woman to have an abortion is to turn the woman into a slave to the fetus. It's that simple.


Well said.

In which case, wouldn't the Supreme Court do best by keeping its nose out of it?

I am absolutely pro-choice, but I still do not get out to throw bombs at abortion protesters who are out there doing their constitutionally protected business.

I would expect that the Supreme Court would allow stare decisis to guide their future decisions on the subject.

Cheers,
Izzy
PS. Stare decisis (from the Latin for "let the decision stand")

The SCOTUS really can't stay out of it. To refuse to hear a case on this law would be to uphold it. It would be the same as hearing the case and deciding that it's a Constitutionally valid law.

As the less often cited Rush put it:
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I said you implied an insult at him, and you did. You implied that he had a lesser mind. The where’s and how’s of it are irrelevant, despite whom you quote or did not quote, you quoted and referenced to imply insult. You can try to show a reason to think that there is some shadow of a doubt of your guilt, but even if acquitted, that doesn't prove innocence of the crime, as I'm sure you know well enough yourself already.

Again, you are not reading carefully what I wrote if you think it implies that Corny has a lesser mind.

You are getting your knickers in a twist due to your own failure to comprehend what I wrote.

The only insult I made against Corny was that he was being inconsistent. If you think that is flaming, then report it.

The SCOTUS really can't stay out of it. To refuse to hear a case on this law would be to uphold it. It would be the same as hearing the case and deciding that it's a Constitutionally valid law.

As the less often cited Rush put it:
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

This assumes the lower courts uphold the law, which is unlikely.

I doubt this will necessitate the Supreme Court's intervention.

The womb is the property of the mother, but you didn't say that the fetus is -- it isn't. If you think that the fetus is the property of the mother, you, unfortunately, believe in a certain form of slavery.

Women have no reproductive rights. Rights come from God, not from man. It says so in the Declaration of Independence, which defines the general principles which Americans should believe (not that you have to, but you should): (1) There is a Creator God, (2) our Rights, such as the unborn baby's Right to Life, come from Him, and (3) the purpose of government is to protect and preserve those God-given rights.

Proof of the above statements: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...]" (The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html)).

There are three problems with this analysis. First, the Declaration of Independence has no legal power in the U.S. It is indeed a powerful and eloquent statement about the natural rights of man, but it is the Constitution that provides the legal basis for decision-making by both the Courts and the Legislature, and the Constitution derives it's power not from God but from its just use of power for the common good.

Secondly, I don't see any necessary link between the assertion that women have no reproductive rights and the assertion that God gives rights, because nowhere in the Bible does God say that the one of the rights he does not bestow upon people is reproductive rights. In point of fact, the only time that abortions are mentioned at all is in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, where the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is less than that of murder. All we hear that from is Sunday preachers who are interpreting the Bible, and as you noted, it's perfectly possible for people to interpret writing badly.

Third, you miss one crucial point in your post concerning why man is entitled to certain rights. It isn't just a function of God making us: he made cucumbers, too, but we don't accord them the right to vote. Rather, it is because he made us with a special gift that other Godly creations do not have: the faculty of reason and logic. In other words, it is because we are reasoning beings that God endowed us with certain rights. The problem, of course, is that a blastocyst or a six-week old fetus is not a reasoning being; it simply does not have the equipment for it. If so, then why should we afford it any rights that we wouldn't assign to the afore-mentioned cucumber?


Recent scientific studies show that a human life begins at conception -- and if you're religious you don't even need to know that, since at conception God gives the zygote a human soul. Taking away the unborn child's life is defined as murder, and our country was founded on Biblical law which holds murder to be a sin, which is why it's illegal. Abortion is, therefore, illegal under the Constitution.

In what sense are you speaking? If you mean "human life" in terms of "self-sustaining cells carrying human DNA", then yes, human life necessarily begins at conception. But we don't afford rights on the basis of self-sustainability of cells carrying human DNA; otherwise we'd have to accord full human rights to a severed kidney or liver. Instead, we afford rights on the basis of rationality and the ability to percieve and use rights. A fetus cannot do that.

As for religion, no I don't necessarily know that. The Bible certainly doesn't tell me, nor does Jesus. In point of fact, the Bible suggests that murder and abortion are seperate crimes with seperate penalties. Augustine and Aquinas actually teach precisely the opposite, that life does not begin at conception, but at quickening. Moreover, our country was hardly founded on Biblical law: if it were a Judeo-Christian nation, then why in the Sam Hill did we put a clause in the VI Article of the Constitution specifically prohibiting putting religious requirements on holding office? You would think that if this were a nation created by Jews and Christians for Jews and Christians, we would have limited our representatives to Jews and Christians. But this is of course outlawed by the Constitution.


And don't tell me that the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Write this on the inside of your eyelids: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW. It interprets the law, and it is perfectly capable of interpreting it incorrectly, which is what happened in Roe v. Wade by the Republican court. That's right, a so-called "conservative" court legalized prosecution for abortion. I am conservative, but the Republican Party is not.

Stare decisis, precedent, does not have to be upheld if the precedent contradicts logic (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=423) -- which, in my case, is anything that contradicts God's Law, but in your case may simply be that it's illogical to legalize murder just because the father and the mother do not want to take any responsibility for their sins, and would rather place all responsibility on the child -- which means murdering it. The unborn child should not be punished for the sins of his/her mother or father. I can understand that it is physically painful for a mother to have a child, but that pain is temporary. The pain of knowing that you murdered a baby is not only far worse than temporary physical pain, but lasts for your whole lifetime.


Can you please show me where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence women are given the right to murder if the baby is inside of them? South Dakota, actually, finally made the Constitutional decision. They have a God-given right to overturn a SC decision -- as I said, stare decisis is not all-binding if the decision originally made was screwed up.

If you agree with everything that I just said, join the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/). If you do not, I pray that some day God may touch you so that you may become an American.

If you want to find where the Constitution gives women the right to an abortion, you'll have to read the Ninth Amendment very, very carefully.

In the larger sense, of course the Supreme Court does not make the law, but they do interpret what the Constitution says, and that has a bearing on what laws can and cannot be passed. In this case, they specifically interpreted the Constitution to say that women do have the right to privacy and the right to an abortion under the Ninth Amendment. They've done so multiple times in multiple cases.

I've already addressed the whole goofy notion of God's law, but I will go a little bit further about punishment for sin: the purpose of the law is not to punish sin. Partly, this is because the law cannot punish some sins, like lusting after your wife, and partly because the enactment of laws to make some sins illegal, like laws against prostitution or adultery, are unenforceable and therefore only encourage disrespect for the rule of law in other cases where the law is necessary. Moreover, such an attempt ignores the fact that Christianity is about doing the right thing for the right reason; my not murdering another person, for instance, is hardly considered a good act if I only don't murder someone out of fear of getting caught. Instead, I should not murder someone because it's not Godly and Christlike to do so. Rather, the purpose of law is to promote peace and create virtuous citizens who will not sin because they choose not to, rather than because the law makes it prohibitively disadvantageous to do so.

Again, you are not reading carefully what I wrote if you think it implies that Corny has a lesser mind.

You are getting your knickers in a twist due to your own failure to comprehend what I wrote.

The only insult I made against Corny was that he was being inconsistent. If you think that is flaming, then report it.

Can we just settle this? It's a bit silly to go on arguing about it when we may well be dealing with the death of either American liberty or the Republican party.

Let's just say it. Corneliu has a lesser mind. He's demonstrated it over and over again. We don't need to imply it or dance around it. He has shown himself completly unable to cite valid sources of information or to base valid conclusions on the factual information that he does have. In both depth and breath Corneliu's mind is in all ways lesser.

Need we argue about whether or not anyone's said it now?

Again, you are not reading carefully what I wrote if you think it implies that Corny has a lesser mind.

You are getting your knickers in a twist due to your own failure to comprehend what I wrote.

The only insult I made against Corny was that he was being inconsistent. If you think that is flaming, then report it.

Interesting. Now you want us to believe that you actually intended to imply that you think he is in fact 'smarter' than average. Instead of simply stopping your deliberate nastiness when asked, you take a defensive posture and tell me to 'press charges' if I think I can prove it.

I think we can see for ourselves who's got their panties in a bunch.

Interesting. Now you want us to believe that you actually intended to imply that you think he is in fact 'smarter' than average. Instead of simply stopping your deliberate nastiness when asked, you take a defensive posture and tell me to 'press charges' if I think I can prove it.

I think we can see for ourselves who's got their panties in a bunch.

This is silly. What I wrote speaks for itself. Drop it.

Interesting. Now you want us to believe that you actually intended to imply that you think he is in fact 'smarter' than average. Instead of simply stopping your deliberate nastiness when asked, you take a defensive posture and tell me to 'press charges' if I think I can prove it.

I think we can see for ourselves who's got their panties in a bunch.

Unless Cornelieu feels mortally insulted, I'm thinking this is just a waste of bandwidth. Corny made a mistake, and TCT threw a clever verbal allusion in his face to stop him cold. Just drop it.

Unless Cornelieu feels mortally insulted, I'm thinking this is just a waste of bandwidth. Corny made a mistake, and TCT threw a clever verbal allusion in his face to stop him cold. Just drop it.

If he feels mortally insulted or not is not the point. The point is, we can have this discussion without deliberate nastiness. It's beginning to get out of hand if people like TCT do it, then others will continue it.

(I'm not saying that it wasn't going on already, but for the most part, this thread has been mostly free of flame and flamebait.

But I do agree to drop it, I think the point was made.)

So im just wondering then.. at what point does a human become a person ? (in your honest opinion)..

Also abortion methods (as i know it) vary greatly, from scraping the embroy off the wall of the Uterus and flushing it down the toilt, to partially delivering a child and then puncuring its skull....

Your argument of "denying it access to the uterus" is like me saying im not killing you... im just denying your lungs access to oxygen to breath. Unless there is another method of denying an embroy access to the Uterus where NO ACTION is actually required.. i fail to see the difference .

Ok well how about this you wake up one morning (after going to a bar and leaving your drink unattended) and some sadistic bastard has attached an IV connecting your blood stream to that of another person and a second one that feeds their blood back into you. It is made clear to you that this second person will die if you disconnect these IV's. Here if you make an action the other man will die, if you make no action he is living on your blood stream. This man is mentally incapacitated and physically disabled, and it is thus not his falut either.

Unlikely yes, but if you disconnect the man are you commiting murder? You are just denying him access to your blood, not actively killing him. It is in part your own fault becuase you should never have finished a drink you left unattended, (the risk of drink spiking is greater then a condom not working.)

*sigh*
You should just disagree with me instead of telling me that you're arrogant, because I am "your neighbor" in a conceptual sense; "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" (Jesus Christ).

1. Can you please show where God's Law forbids abortion? Good luck finding that in the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible supports abortion.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

If a man causes an abortion/miscarriage, he should be punished because God values life before birth. I could add more quotes but I would prefer short replies.

2. If you are going to be a constitutionalist, you should learn a little about the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is legally irrelevant.
I know as much as I need to know about the Constitution. I know that the Declaration of Independence is legally irrelevant, but that doesn't make it entirely irrelevant. Principles of the Declaration can be found within the Constitution -- I just prefer to quote the Declaration because the language is more beautiful. But the meaning I try to convey is the same -- both the Declaration and the Constitution guarantee, for example, the right to life.

3. The Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments protect fundamental rights, among them is the right to abortion.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)
Actually, the Supreme Court cannot make up new rights. A women's right to liberty stops where a baby's right to life begins. The SC's legal definition of "person" is false. But I honestly don't care about any sort of "LEGAL DEFINITION" of "person." It's the principle about which I care, not the politics. Aside from that, nowhere in the fifth or fourteenth amendments are women given the right to murder a baby, so the Supreme Court was simply wrong, and they need to overturn their decision. This evolutionary view of law is a direct result of Charles Darwin's influence; now everyone thinks that the text of the Constitution changes over time, as if it's some sort of living creature. But "to say that the Constitution is living is to say that it is dead" (Michael A. Peroutka).

Now my commentary on the right to liberty: the women already had pre-marital sex, or she was already raped. That's either the sin of the mother, the father, or both. In the case of voluntary pre-marital sex, women do have the right to liberty to have it. That's their choice -- but they made the wrongful, sinful decision to make the wrong choice, and their new baby should not be punished for it. In the case of rape, it's not the mother's or the child's fault that the mother was raped. The mother should not be punished for the father's sins by having to have an abortion -- why should she be wrongfully influenced to sin because of a rapist? And the child should not be punished for his/her father's sin of rape, obviously.

The womb is the property of the mother, but you didn't say that the fetus is -- it isn't.
It is. The woman owns the womb and the contents thereof.


If you think that the fetus is the property of the mother, you, unfortunately, believe in a certain form of slavery.
No, I do not. A fetus has no rights.


Women have no reproductive rights. Rights come from God, not from man.
There is no god, and women have reproductive rights.

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

If a man causes an abortion/miscarriage, he should be punished because God values life before birth. I could add more quotes but I would prefer short replies.

Actually that quote clearly says that if a man causes a woman to have an involuntary abortion, he "shall surely be fined." Further injury to the woman, however, "then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."

This passage clearly says that (1) abortion is not taking a life in God's eyes and (2) even involuntary abortion merits no more than a fine.


I know as much as I need to know about the Constitution.

Evidently not.

I know that the Declaration of Independence is legally irrelevant, but that doesn't make it entirely irrelevant. Principles of the Declaration can be found within the Constitution -- I just prefer to quote the Declaration because the language is more beautiful. But the meaning I try to convey is the same -- both the Declaration and the Constitution guarantee, for example, the right to life.

Meh. The only place the Constitution protects a right to life is in the Due Process Clauses. Yet you would make those clauses toothless.

Actually, the Supreme Court cannot make up new rights.

Do you have a right to have children?
Do you have a right to raise your own children?
Do you have a right to vote in state elections?

I can go on and on with rights the Supreme Court has allegedly "made up."

A women's right to liberty stops where a baby's right to life begins. The SC's legal definition of "person" is false. But I honestly don't care about any sort of "LEGAL DEFINITION" of "person." It's the principle about which I care, not the politics. Aside from that, nowhere in the fifth or fourteenth amendments are women given the right to murder a baby, so the Supreme Court was simply wrong, and they need to overturn their decision.

Liberty, my friend. The Due Process Clauses grant liberty. And only to born persons. It is clear from the text. "No person born in the United States ...."

This evolutionary view of law is a direct result of Charles Darwin's influence; now everyone thinks that the text of the Constitution changes over time, as if it's some sort of living creature. But "to say that the Constitution is living is to say that it is dead" (Michael A. Peroutka).

LOL.

The view of the Constitution as changing over time was the view of the Founding Fathers. It predates Darwin and is the original intent of the document.

Now my commentary on the right to liberty: the women already had pre-marital sex, or she was already raped. That's either the sin of the mother, the father, or both. In the case of voluntary pre-marital sex, women do have the right to liberty to have it. That's their choice -- but they made the wrongful, sinful decision to make the wrong choice, and their new baby should not be punished for it. In the case of rape, it's not the mother's or the child's fault that the mother was raped. The mother should not be punished for the father's sins by having to have an abortion -- why should she be wrongfully influenced to sin because of a rapist? And the child should not be punished for his/her father's sin of rape, obviously.

I'm sorry but abortion is not a sin.

Your entire world view is that women a little more than baby machines. How sad.

EDIT: BTW, women who are married also have abortions. And 60% of women that have abortions have one or more child already.

There are three problems with this analysis. First, the Declaration of Independence has no legal power in the U.S. It is indeed a powerful and eloquent statement about the natural rights of man, but it is the Constitution that provides the legal basis for decision-making by both the Courts and the Legislature, and the Constitution derives it's power not from God but from its just use of power for the common good.
As I said in my previous reply, I just like quoting the Declaration of Independence because, yes, it is powerful and eloquent. But the Constitution guarantees people the same rights that the Constitution does, so I feel free to quote them interchangeable. As for your last statement: Law comes from God, but the Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed, because we (well, not "we," but some dead white men) ordained it.

Secondly, I don't see any necessary link between the assertion that women have no reproductive rights and the assertion that God gives rights, because nowhere in the Bible does God say that the one of the rights he does not bestow upon people is reproductive rights. In point of fact, the only time that abortions are mentioned at all is in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, where the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is less than that of murder. All we hear that from is Sunday preachers who are interpreting the Bible, and as you noted, it's perfectly possible for people to interpret writing badly.
Women have no reproductive rights because the Bible tells us exactly what rights God gave people. All other rights are just made up, like the right to murder the unborn child. I do not think people are interpreting the Bible incorrectly when they say that abortion is murder.

Third, you miss one crucial point in your post concerning why man is entitled to certain rights. It isn't just a function of God making us: he made cucumbers, too, but we don't accord them the right to vote. Rather, it is because he made us with a special gift that other Godly creations do not have: the faculty of reason and logic. In other words, it is because we are reasoning beings that God endowed us with certain rights. The problem, of course, is that a blastocyst or a six-week old fetus is not a reasoning being; it simply does not have the equipment for it. If so, then why should we afford it any rights that we wouldn't assign to the afore-mentioned cucumber?
Because cucumbers don't have souls.

In what sense are you speaking? If you mean "human life" in terms of "self-sustaining cells carrying human DNA", then yes, human life necessarily begins at conception. But we don't afford rights on the basis of self-sustainability of cells carrying human DNA; otherwise we'd have to accord full human rights to a severed kidney or liver. Instead, we afford rights on the basis of rationality and the ability to percieve and use rights. A fetus cannot do that.
A fetus has a soul and it is the opportunity for rationality and the ability to perceive and use rights that causes me to want to protect its life. The cells of liver and kidneys will never become fully grown, but the concieved cells will.

As for religion, no I don't necessarily know that. The Bible certainly doesn't tell me, nor does Jesus. In point of fact, the Bible suggests that murder and abortion are seperate crimes with seperate penalties. Augustine and Aquinas actually teach precisely the opposite, that life does not begin at conception, but at quickening. Moreover, our country was hardly founded on Biblical law: if it were a Judeo-Christian nation, then why in the Sam Hill did we put a clause in the VI Article of the Constitution specifically prohibiting putting religious requirements on holding office? You would think that if this were a nation created by Jews and Christians for Jews and Christians, we would have limited our representatives to Jews and Christians. But this is of course outlawed by the Constitution.
Our laws come from the Bible. That's where our Founders looked when they were constructing our country. The reason why the sixth amendment forbids religion tests is because that is also a Biblical principle -- Christians give asylum to anyone, even if this anyone is not necessarily Christian. However, we were founded such that we, Christians, elect Christians to government so that Christian laws remain the law of the land. Non-Christians have our asylum but still have to abide by Biblical and Constitutional law. Our law had to be based on something, and the answer is simply Christianity because our forefathers were Christians.

If you want to find where the Constitution gives women the right to an abortion, you'll have to read the Ninth Amendment very, very carefully.
This statement presupposes that women have the right to abortions, which is false.

In the larger sense, of course the Supreme Court does not make the law, but they do interpret what the Constitution says, and that has a bearing on what laws can and cannot be passed. In this case, they specifically interpreted the Constitution to say that women do have the right to privacy and the right to an abortion under the Ninth Amendment. They've done so multiple times in multiple cases.
They are supposed to interpret it correctly, and the Declaration of Independence says that when laws are unlawful, they should be changed. This itself is not a law, but a principle stating that we should change the Supreme Court's decision if it was wrong. The real purpose of the Supreme Court is simply to clarify what the law really means, but the problem in Roe v. Wade was that the Supreme Court didn't initially know what the law meant.

I've already addressed the whole goofy notion of God's law, but I will go a little bit further about punishment for sin: the purpose of the law is not to punish sin. Partly, this is because the law cannot punish some sins, like lusting after your wife, and partly because the enactment of laws to make some sins illegal, like laws against prostitution or adultery, are unenforceable and therefore only encourage disrespect for the rule of law in other cases where the law is necessary. Moreover, such an attempt ignores the fact that Christianity is about doing the right thing for the right reason; my not murdering another person, for instance, is hardly considered a good act if I only don't murder someone out of fear of getting caught. Instead, I should not murder someone because it's not Godly and Christlike to do so. Rather, the purpose of law is to promote peace and create virtuous citizens who will not sin because they choose not to, rather than because the law makes it prohibitively disadvantageous to do so.
"[T]he whole goofy notion of God's law"? That's pretty offensive. But other than that, what is the purpose of these statements in the context of the debate? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Our laws come from the Bible. That's where our Founders looked when they were constructing our country. The reason why the sixth amendment forbids religion tests is because that is also a Biblical principle -- Christians give asylum to anyone, even if this anyone is not necessarily Christian. However, we were founded such that we, Christians, elect Christians to government so that Christian laws remain the law of the land. Non-Christians have our asylum but still have to abide by Biblical and Constitutional law. Our law had to be based on something, and the answer is simply Christianity because our forefathers were Christians.

This is simply empirically untrue. Our laws -- and particularly the Constitution -- do not come from the Bible.

BTW, it is not the 6th Amendment that says there shall be no religious test for office. It is Article VI of the Constitution. And your "non-Christians have mere asylum" theory founders on the First Amendment as well as the no religious test clause (which you turn on its head).

Hi everyone
By writing this I don't mean to make you angry if you oppose abortion, but it's something I've been complaining about for quite some time now and I felt like letting it all out so here goes...

Most of you know Laci Peterson and her soon-to-be-born baby were murdered by Laci's husband Scott and that he sits as we speak (or type, I guess) on death row. The government said what he did was terrible enough to deserve that, and I'm guessing about 99.99% of non-criminals, including those against captial punishsment, would agree that what he did was terrible-not only did he cheat on Laci before killing her, but dumped their bodies in the ocean and had the nerve to pretend to care. I can't imagine what would make someone do that.
My question is, regarding abortion, what is the difference between the choice he made and the choice of any pregnant woman to terminate the life of her unborn child? Don't we call human embryos human embryos for a reason? Since when does the U.S. (or anywhere) consider killing humans all fine and dandy? I mean, the only reason Scott's on death row is because he murdered the baby!
I have heard about the various ways abortions are carried out and they are outstandingly morbid. How people even come up with those methods is beyond me, let alone use them. It's sick and it needs to stop and I applaud South Dakota for attempting to stop this mess.
Again, my apologies if this upsets you but obviously it's a serious issue and not much could make me happier than to see this low respect for life disappear.

Keep your laws off my body.


Abortion should always be an option to those who need one. Especially in extreme cases such as rape. No one should ever have to live with something that was forced upon them.

Hi everyone
By writing this I don't mean to make you angry if you oppose abortion, but it's something I've been complaining about for quite some time now and I felt like letting it all out so here goes...

Most of you know Laci Peterson and her soon-to-be-born baby were murdered by Laci's husband Scott and that he sits as we speak (or type, I guess) on death row. The government said what he did was terrible enough to deserve that, and I'm guessing about 99.99% of non-criminals, including those against captial punishsment, would agree that what he did was terrible-not only did he cheat on Laci before killing her, but dumped their bodies in the ocean and had the nerve to pretend to care. I can't imagine what would make someone do that.
My question is, regarding abortion, what is the difference between the choice he made and the choice of any pregnant woman to terminate the life of her unborn child? Don't we call human embryos human embryos for a reason? Since when does the U.S. (or anywhere) consider killing humans all fine and dandy? I mean, the only reason Scott's on death row is because he murdered the baby!
I have heard about the various ways abortions are carried out and they are outstandingly morbid. How people even come up with those methods is beyond me, let alone use them. It's sick and it needs to stop and I applaud South Dakota for attempting to stop this mess.
Again, my apologies if this upsets you but obviously it's a serious issue and not much could make me happier than to see this low respect for life disappear.
ill be happy to tell you the difference

laci peterson was 8 months pregnant (or was it 9?)

the average abortion is done at 8 weeks

if laci had wanted an abortion it would have been denied. 8 month abortions are only done for emergencies.

do you see the difference between aborting an unwanted fetus (unless its still an embryo) at 8 weeks-- before it has any mental function, well before it feels pain, before you would have a funeral for it if it died spontaneously--and killing an 8th month fetus that is very much wanted, anticipated and loved?

It is. The woman owns the womb and the contents thereof.

No, I do not. A fetus has no rights.

There is no god, and women have reproductive rights.
Such a view was feared by our Founders. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, held a great fear of the weakening influence of religion on Americans, and you, as well as all the other liberals, are a direct result of this. It dates back to the era of the War for Southern Independence (The Civil War), when Christian law was destroyed by the worst president in history, Abraham Lincoln, instituting an era of anti-religion and pro-evolution (Darwin published his book around that time as well). And no, I hate slavery, but the so-called "Great Emancipator" endorsed it in one of his inugural addresses.

Actually that quote clearly says that if a man causes a woman to have an involuntary abortion, he "shall surely be fined." Further injury to the woman, however, "then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."

This passage clearly says that (1) abortion is not taking a life in God's eyes and (2) even involuntary abortion merits no more than a fine.
Let's not debate the Bible, because it's a distraction from the real debate. I disagree with you about God's views on abortion but let's just leave at that... because I dislike Bible-quote-fests.

I know as much as I need to know about the Constitution.Evidently not.
Why do you care? Are you here just to throw insults, or are you here to establish your opinion and try to support it? Your lack of respect is consistent with your liberal views. I am very happy with my religion, which requires me to respect women, unborn children, and you.

Meh. The only place the Constitution protects a right to life is in the Due Process Clauses. Yet you would make those clauses toothless.
So do you imply that you don't hold a decent respect for the right to life? I value every word of the Constitution.

Do you have a right to have children?
Do you have a right to raise your own children?
Do you have a right to vote in state elections?

I can go on and on with rights the Supreme Court has allegedly "made up."
I do not support anything unConstitutional that the Supreme Court has done.

Liberty, my friend. The Due Process Clauses grant liberty. And only to born persons. It is clear from the text. "No person born in the United States ...."
Here is the text of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment:
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.
This amendment establishes any person born in the US as a citizen, but it protects the right to life and liberty of any person in the US -- not just any citizen. You don't, therefore, have to be born to be a person; even if you do have to be born to be a citizen.

LOL.

The view of the Constitution as changing over time was the view of the Founding Fathers. It predates Darwin and is the original intent of the document.
I don't think your views are funny, just wrong, so what's funny about mine? The Founding Fathers disagreed on the specifics, but I am a fan of Thomas Jefferson, who favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They did not all share equal beliefs, but they did not feel that the text of the Constitution should change, nor its meaning, and if all they did, I would like you to prove such an absurd statement.

I'm sorry but abortion is not a sin.

Your entire world view is that women a little more than baby machines. How sad.
My world view is simply the Biblical view. I don't view women as little more than "baby machines," but whatever you think my world view may be, fine. I don't need to know what you think of my view, just why you think it's wrong so that I can disprove you.

This is simply empirically untrue. Our laws -- and particularly the Constitution -- do not come from the Bible.

BTW, it is not the 6th Amendment that says there shall be no religious test for office. It is Article VI of the Constitution. And your "non-Christians have mere asylum" theory founders on the First Amendment as well as the no religious test clause (which you turn on its head).
Thank you for the correction of 6th article and not amendment. But what I say would not violate the first amendment in its original meaning and intent. We afford other people asylum, but we are expected to still vote Christians into office. This does not mean that it would be unlawful if we did not, but we are just expected to by our Founding Fathers.

And anyway, can you prove that our laws don't come from the Bible? Of the foundations laid by our Forefathers, which violate God's Law? If you cannot find anything contradictory to Biblical principles, then it is clear that the Bible is where they got it. They left England because the ruler wasn't Christian enough for them so that they could establish a truly Christian nation. They assumed that Christianity is the only way to true freedom.

My question is, regarding abortion, what is the difference between the choice he made and the choice of any pregnant woman to terminate the life of her unborn child?
No difference, because the motive of the man was to make his life easier at the expense of lives, and the motive of the women having abortions is to make their lives easier at the expense of lives.

Since when does the U.S. (or anywhere) consider killing humans all fine and dandy?
Since progressivism influenced people and religion stopped influencing them, which came out of several historical events, such as the Union victory in the War for Southern Independence, and the publishing of The Origin of Species. The situation is only worsened by government schools (public schools) which practice historical revisionism to teach you to worship the state instead of teaching moral values. (The Dept. of Education is unConstitutional, which explains why gov't schools don't work.)

Such a view was feared by our Founders.
No, it wasn't. And evolution has nothing to do with this.

Now then, rights do not come from god. There is no god. Please do not bring your infantile superstition into this debate. It is neither relevant nor proper to bring some idiotic bronze-age myth into this discussion. Either stick to reality or stay out of this thread. If you can't discuss this without reference to some deity, then you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

btw, our laws come mostly from English Common Law. They have nothing to do with the bible at all. Nothing. Period.

Keep your laws off my body.


Abortion should always be an option to those who need one. Especially in extreme cases such as rape. No one should ever have to live with something that was forced upon them.
"Especially in extreme cases such as rape. No one should ever have to live with something that was forced upon them." -- Precisely. Why should the woman have to live with the guilt all her life knowing she's a murderer? Better to get that kid adopted. There are thousands of families looking to adopt, and most of them can't find anyone unless they look in China because most women prefer lifelong guilt over physical pain. No woman "needs" an abortion. However, if the woman will die from the pregnancy, it's not a murderous abortion because it's not a choice, so I wouldn't object to that.

Abortion should always be an option to those who need one. Especially in extreme cases such as rape. No one should ever have to live with something that was forced upon them.
I agree that extreme times are ridiculously tough to deal with, but don't forget that adoption is always an option- and it's not like that keeps the mother (or whoever's interested) from seeing them again, if they want to. That can't always be arranged, unfortunately, but compared to murdering the innocent I would say it's the more respectful and worthwhile choice. I have a friend who gave her son for adoption (no I'm not the father and she wasn't raped, she's just a teen) and she sees him all the time. Now is giving birth painful? I'm a guy so obviously I can't know, I can only imagine how it is, but given the choice between giving someone life or slaughtering them like an animal, I'd go with the adoption option. It just makes sense.
By the way, there's an interesting poem I read by the judge who (I think) was fired for refusing to take down the 10 commandments (which I don't see how firing him was right either, but that's beside the point).
Part of it went something like this (sorry if it's not an exact quote):
"Too soft to place a killer in a well-deserved tomb
but brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb"
I think that also makes sense, obviously it's your choice though.

Oh snap I didn't see the post before my last one... my bad

"Especially in extreme cases such as rape. No one should ever have to live with something that was forced upon them." -- Precisely. Why should the woman have to live with the guilt all her life knowing she's a murderer? Better to get that kid adopted. There are thousands of families looking to adopt, and most of them can't find anyone unless they look in China because most women prefer lifelong guilt over physical pain. No woman "needs" an abortion. However, if the woman will die from the pregnancy, it's not a murderous abortion because it's not a choice, so I wouldn't object to that.


And that would be forced upon her how? I support a woman's right to choose. Period. End of story. Putting all emotions aside, because guilt that she might feel really has little to do do with it. Even if I might agree that adoption is a great option, I repeat, abortion especially in extreme cases should always be an option.

Although I share your fears, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood, which upheld Roe and waxed eloquent about stare decisis.
Yeah, but he wrote a vigorous dissent in Carhartt, I believe, and isn't the most consistent Justice on the Court.

As I said in my previous reply, I just like quoting the Declaration of Independence because, yes, it is powerful and eloquent. But the Constitution guarantees people the same rights that the Constitution does, so I feel free to quote them interchangeable. As for your last statement: Law comes from God, but the Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed, because we (well, not "we," but some dead white men) ordained it.

I assume you mean ". . .the Declaration of Independence guarantees people the same rights as the Constitution. . .", and no they do not. The Declaration merely puts Locke's Second Treatise into a more flowery dress and elaborates on what rights man in the state of nature has. The Constitution actually tries to put it into effect, and elaborates on exactly what rights the people will and won't have in this particular attempt to avoid the state of nature. The Declaration never talks about the right to be free of seach and seizure, while the Constitution does. By the same token, the Declaration speaks of an absolute right to private property that the Constitution with its eminent domain provision in the 5th Amendment simply does not have.

More importantly, what gives our Constitution legitemacy is not its conformity to God's law. As I will note later, no human law can ever completely conform to God's law, nor should it. What gives it legitemacy is something completely human: whether people feel that the law serves the common good. It might be that what ultimately serves the common good conforms with God's law, but this isn't what gives the law its power and authority; instead, it's human willingness to accept that law as binding. To put it more simply, in a democracy it doesn't matter if something accords with God's law if people don't want to have that law in place.


Women have no reproductive rights because the Bible tells us exactly what rights God gave people. All other rights are just made up, like the right to murder the unborn child. I do not think people are interpreting the Bible incorrectly when they say that abortion is murder.


Really? And where, pray tell, does the Bible say that everyone has the natural right to life, liberty, and property. I can certainly tell you choice passages where God suggests that life, liberty, and property are all his, not yours, but I forgot where Locke cited the Bible in his Second Treatise. While you're at it, it would be very handy if you could tell me where to find Biblical justifications for other rights we consider natural, such as the right to vote, the right for our votes to measure equally in the political process, the right to a trial by jury, the right to presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, etc.

Or are you suggesting that those are simply "made-up" rights that we shouldn't have, either? Because if you are, I think it might help if you go through the Constitution and parse out exactly which Amendments and provisions in the Constitution are and are not Biblically-based.


Because cucumbers don't have souls.


And how exactly do you know that--Genesis is the book that covers the creation of cucumbers, and it never talks about souls at all, for humans or plants. There are other books of the Bible that talk about humans having souls, but they don't mention cucumbers not having souls.

In short, I can tell you exactly why I think we have souls and cucumbers don't, but it is for the reason mentioned before: we can reason and cucumbers can't. He have the biological facility for reason, and cucumbers don't. But the same reason why we are soulful and cucumbers aren't is precisely the reason why we have rights and six-week old fetuses don't, because six-week old fetuses don't have the capacity for reason, and not reason itself. Thus, they aren't ensouled any more than said cucumber is.


A fetus has a soul and it is the opportunity for rationality and the ability to perceive and use rights that causes me to want to protect its life. The cells of liver and kidneys will never become fully grown, but the concieved cells will.


Irrelevant. We don't base our notion of rights upon whether something potentially can have rights, but whether they can exercise those rights now. That's why we don't allow six-year olds to vote, even though potentially, they will have the faculties to do so twelve years down the road.


Our laws come from the Bible. That's where our Founders looked when they were constructing our country. The reason why the sixth amendment forbids religion tests is because that is also a Biblical principle -- Christians give asylum to anyone, even if this anyone is not necessarily Christian. However, we were founded such that we, Christians, elect Christians to government so that Christian laws remain the law of the land. Non-Christians have our asylum but still have to abide by Biblical and Constitutional law. Our law had to be based on something, and the answer is simply Christianity because our forefathers were Christians.

Apparently you missed my oblique reference to the Sixth Article (not amendment), so I'll reference it directly:


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

If this truly were a "Christian nation" as your post suggests, then it would seem logical that this little statute in bold would never be put in the Constitution, because after all, if you want Christian laws, you don't exactly want a Hindi or a Buddhist lawmaker, now do you?

Moreover, you might want to consult your history books on something called the "English Civil War" and "Glorious Revolution". The men who wrote the Constitution knew enough about English history to know that you don't want God's law and human law to be intertwined, because invariably it leads to civil war incongruous to the general good.


This statement presupposes that women have the right to abortions, which is false.

That's because the Ninth Amendment presupposes that women have the right to abortions, at least and until 1) Congress passes a law restricting that right, and 2) the court system interprets the law as being consistent with the Constitution. You may not like it, but reality is sometimes like that.


They are supposed to interpret it correctly, and the Declaration of Independence says that when laws are unlawful, they should be changed. This itself is not a law, but a principle stating that we should change the Supreme Court's decision if it was wrong. The real purpose of the Supreme Court is simply to clarify what the law really means, but the problem in Roe v. Wade was that the Supreme Court didn't initially know what the law meant.

All except for the last phrase is merely a rehash of what I've been saying already. As for Roe, you might want to actually read the Ninth Amendment before you make such claims, because it seems entirely reasonable that on the basis of the Ninth Amendment, women have the right to privacy of person. By extension, they have the right to do what they will within reasonable means without government interference. They seem to have a very good understanding of the law, if you ask me.


"[T]he whole goofy notion of God's law"? That's pretty offensive. But other than that, what is the purpose of these statements in the context of the debate? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is simple: there is a necessary distinction between God's law and human law, because they have different ends. The end of human law isn't to get people to go to heaven, or to punish sin, but simply to promote peace and virtue in citizens. As such, human law will necessarily allow things that God's law doesn't: it will allow men to lust after their neighbor's wives, because it lacks the means to tell when men are breaking that commandment. It will allow men to be adulturous, because such behavior is virtually impossible to prevent even by force of law and the resulting damage to the rule of law is greater were an oft-broken and unenforceable rule on the books. It will allow killings in time of war, even though Jesus argues for non-violence in the Sermon on the Mount, because war is sometimes a necessity of state. It will never mandate conversion to Christianity, because you can't by might of arms make Christian faith or love.

Well, what is the point of all this, you might ask? Well, if there is a necessary distinction between God's law and the human law, then it seems impossible that the Constitution is based on God's law, and foolish to proclaim. God's law is purely about how to get into heaven, while human law is about how to regulate men on earth. Moreover, God's law is not subject to vote, which makes it imcompatible with the whole basis for democratic government: democracy itself derives from the Greek demos and kratos, meaning, in effect, people power. If law is based on what God says, then how in the Sam Hill do people have the power? The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they went out of their way to put stuff like the Article Six prohibition of religious requirements into the Constitution.

This is all part of the Republicans getting all their ducks in a row to destroy the precedent of Roe versus Wade. It won’t be long before the Republican dominated Supreme Court tackles the abortion issue and rules against it. This move in South Dakota is just laying the ground work to make that happen. By doing this for the Christian Right, the Republicans will erase any of their failings on secular issues in the Bush Administration and all will be forgiven.

Of course, Pat Robertson praying for God to kill Democrat appointed judges on the Supreme Court doesn't exactly fill me with a lot of hope for the future in the US, when his views are so widely embraced.

The Bruce

Oh snap I didn't see the post before my last one... my bad
did you also miss my response to your post??

By the way, there's an interesting poem I read by the judge who (I think) was fired for refusing to take down the 10 commandments (which I don't see how firing him was right either, but that's beside the point).
Part of it went something like this (sorry if it's not an exact quote):
"Too soft to place a killer in a well-deserved tomb
but brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb"
I think that also makes sense, obviously it's your choice though.
Go Roy Moore!!!! (Actually he's still a judge, just not Supreme Justice of Alabama.) He's a true advocate of religious freedom.

No, it wasn't. And evolution has nothing to do with this.

Now then, rights do not come from god. There is no god. Please do not bring your infantile superstition into this debate. It is neither relevant nor proper to bring some idiotic bronze-age myth into this discussion. Either stick to reality or stay out of this thread. If you can't discuss this without reference to some deity, then you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

btw, our laws come mostly from English Common Law. They have nothing to do with the bible at all. Nothing. Period.
Your hostility to religion is disturbing. I enjoy freedom of religion and of speech; don't you enjoy yours? Why do you want to destroy mine? And I think religion does have a place in this debate. My religion requires that it has a place everywhere I go, and if your religion requires that you destroy any instances of religion where you go, you give ample evidence supporting a theory that society has dramatically deteriorated. (Can you prove anything you say?)

Go Roy Moore!!!! (Actually he's still a judge, just not Supreme Justice of Alabama.) He's a true advocate of religious freedom.
No, he is not. He's an advocate of religious discrimination and freedom of religion ONLY for xers.


Your hostility to religion is disturbing.
Your lack of a well-reasoned and logical argument is noted. Thank you for conceding that you haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

Now please: present a well-reasoned and logical argument for your case. If you cannot do it, please be silent.

What a debate...

Personally, and apologies if it's been stated before, but I believe that everyone needs to take the emotion out of this issue. I believe that this debate should be about states rights vs. the extent of governmental control. Whether you are pro choice or pro life, I believe that government should leave it to the states to decide issues like this. If South Dakota decides to outlaw abortion, and the people of that state oppose the decision, then they have the right to vote in people that will make the state pro choice once again. Same thing if a state decides to become pro choice when it's people want abortion outlawed.

There are states that want to outlaw abortion, and there are states that want to allow abortions. It should fall to the states, and their people, to decide issues like these, not the government.

And that would be forced upon her how? I support a woman's right to choose. Period. End of story. Putting all emotions aside, because guilt that she might feel really has little to do do with it. Even if I might agree that adoption is a great option, I repeat, abortion especially in extreme cases should always be an option.How could you propose "putting all emotions aside?" How is it not an emotional issue? ESPECAILLY with extreme cases like rape! As far as I know, the number of women who don't care about killing their babies is ridiculously small, so obviously guilt really is an issue. The fact that we're even having this discussion proves you can't take out emotional feelings.

And Ashmoria, I don't think it matters when a baby is murdered during its prenatal development. The key point is it's murder. Regardless of whether he or she can feel pain or think for his or her self. As I said, they call it a human embryo for a reason.
Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant went she went missing and was found offshore 4 months later.

youre right, since children arent fully grown humans either, if im their mother I should be able to kill you and not have anyone be able to do anything about it(including your father). In fact, this would be the fact until 21 or older for some men and prolly as late as 18 for women.

Don't be ridiculous. That is no where near the same. A child is more independant from the mother than a fetus and has a personality. Once they are out of you you can't legally order their death or kill them. I believe that before the fetus has a heartbeat it is not alive. If my heart beat were to stop I would be considered dead so why not have the same standard for something that is hardly as much as a clump of cells?

What a debate...

Personally, and apologies if it's been stated before, but I believe that everyone needs to take the emotion out of this issue. I believe that this debate should be about states rights vs. the extent of governmental control.
No--the debate is about individual rights vs governmental trampling on them.

Putting rights up for a vote is a surefire way to end up with places like Auschwitz and the Cambodian Death Fields.

How could you propose "putting all emotions aside?" How is it not an emotional issue? ESPECAILLY with extreme cases like rape! As far as I know, the number of women who don't care about killing their babies is ridiculously small, so obviously guilt really is an issue. The fact that we're even having this discussion proves you can't take out emotional feelings.


When I meant emotions, I was refering to the guilt that a woman could feel after, not emotions coming from debating the issue. The fact that a woman might feel guilty about doing it after shouldn't influence it.

If my heart beat were to stop I would be considered dead so why not have the same standard for something that is hardly as much as a clump of cells?Simply because they're humans and because you are the one finishing them off. Aren't we also a clump of cells?

No--the debate is about individual rights vs governmental trampling on them.

Nicely put.

It will win the narrow victory of banning abortion, which I wholeheartedly think should be done. But it will do nothing to attack what made Roe vs. Wade a reality: judicial activism. It has allowed the court to step out of their constitutional boundaries of interpreting the law, and granted them the liberty of making up laws. It allowed for such recent programs as eminent domain, and will continue to create other warped policies in the future. That, my friends, should be the focus of the pro-life movement.

When I meant emotions, I was refering to the guilt that a woman could feel after, not emotions coming from debating the issue. The fact that a woman might feel guilty about doing it after shouldn't influence it.I would ask then, why not? Shouldn't the guilt of putting someone to death for selfish reasons be a sufficient reason to consider the guilt aspect of it and how that effects the infant? And yes, it is selfish because as I stated earlier, adoption is an option.

Simply because they're humans and because you are the one finishing them off. Aren't we also a clump of cells?

A clump of cells with personalities who can think. If your brain is not formed enough to tell the heart to beat then you are basically dead.

A clump of cells with personalities who can think. If your brain is not formed enough to tell the heart to beat then you are basically dead.You basically just admitted they're human. Thank you

No--the debate is about individual rights vs governmental trampling on them.If you're referring to the rights of the infants, then I wholly agree with you. If not, then, well, there isn't really a right to murder. Sorry.

"Especially in extreme cases such as rape. No one should ever have to live with something that was forced upon them." -- Precisely. Why should the woman have to live with the guilt all her life knowing she's a murderer? Better to get that kid adopted. There are thousands of families looking to adopt, and most of them can't find anyone unless they look in China because most women prefer lifelong guilt over physical pain. No woman "needs" an abortion. However, if the woman will die from the pregnancy, it's not a murderous abortion because it's not a choice, so I wouldn't object to that.

I agree with the last bit of your message but I not the rest. You think that it is better to put a baby into adoption? Many babies die in adowption because they can not be given all the love and care they need, surprisingly babies can die if they do not get enough loving attention even if well fed and taken care of in other ways. The mother is not a murderer if she has an abortion if it is seen as murder than the one who would be a murderer would be the doctor who performed the operation. Also some women do not WANT to have abortions but are forced into them by husbands, boyfriends, fiances, mothers, fathers etc. And about the China comment it's LAW that you can not have more than one child there, the mothers don't all want only one child but they have no choice. I personally think China has that one thing right, the worlds population is to high and needs to be lowered or atleast kept from rising.

You basically just admitted they're human. Thank you

I never said they WEREN'T human. I just think if you have no heartbeat you are dead and therefore have no rights and people can do whatever they want with you.

I never said they WEREN'T human. I just think if you have no heartbeat you are dead and therefore have no rights and people can do whatever they want with you.I agree that they have no heartbeat (at the early stages), but they're developing- that's the very begninning of life. Is that really being dead?

I would ask then, why not? Shouldn't the guilt of putting someone to death for selfish reasons be a sufficient reason to consider the guilt aspect of it and how that effects the infant? And yes, it is selfish because as I stated earlier, adoption is an option.


Because I believe that it's an issue of individual rights, not what the situation or after-emotions (not a real phrase, I know...) regarding it may be (but yes, a rape case was an example I used earlier of something that should definitely be allowed for). I don't want to debate the issue regarding what defines a human and what it can and cannot feel because it's all over the last 40-something pages of this thread.

If you're referring to the rights of the infants, then I wholly agree with you. If not, then, well, there isn't really a right to murder. Sorry.

Infants have no rights. I like babies as much as other people and all but if since others have used something like this I will to, if my mother killed me because she HAD to otherwise she would die, then I would be glad of it. That sounds REALLY effed up I know, but I love my mother and if I knew she would die giving birth to me and somehow knew the situation, I would want her to kill me instead of letting her die. If I have an infant and can not take care of it, as it is mine I decide what to do with it, if it is unborn I will abort rather than (if this is a drastic situation) raise a child in pverty and possibly very bad situation or put it into adoption where it may very well die or become mistreated horribly. Not that that is what I would do if I somehow became pregnant this instant. I would not want to have an abortion or anything but I don't know what I would do. It is up to the mother and father of the child.

A clump of cells with personalities who can think. If your brain is not formed enough to tell the heart to beat then you are basically dead.

an embryo is human but its not a person its alive but its not a baby.

Because I believe that it's an issue of individual rights, not what the situation or after-emotions (not a real phrase, I know...) regarding it may be (but yes, a rape case was an example I used earlier of something that should definitely be allowed for). I don't want to debate the issue regarding what defines a human and what it can and cannot feel because it's all over the last 40-something pages of this thread.
You missed what I said in response to BAAWA- I mentioned that

I agree that they have no heartbeat (at the early stages), but they're developing- that's the very begninning of life. Is that really being dead?It ain't life. What the fuck else is it?

The short answer is, it's neither, but I'll see if he figures it out on his own. I doubt it happens.

It ain't life. What the f--- else is it?

The short answer is, it's neither, but I'll see if he figures it out on his own. I doubt it happens.
I doubt it'll happen too- because they're either alive or dead, and as I said they're not dead. So, what else is it if it's not life?

I agree that they have no heartbeat (at the early stages), but they're developing- that's the very begninning of life. Is that really being dead?

At that point in time yes. I kind of think it is similar to say that someones brain was basically dead and they were being kept alive by a machine. They have no say in anything. They may if they are not definitely completely brain dead wake up one day and live, or they may just die. Let's say they have no spouse and it is up to the parents to decide if they will keep them on life support or not. The parents would need to look at how much money they have and their income if any to see if they can pay for their child's life. They also need to know if they can stand their child just being there non-responsive. It is their decision. Obviously not that same sort of situatuon but it is similar. If a child once it is born becomes the parents decidion for if he/she lives then why not before it is born?

No, he is not. He's an advocate of religious discrimination and freedom of religion ONLY for xers.



Your lack of a well-reasoned and logical argument is noted. Thank you for conceding that you haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

Now please: present a well-reasoned and logical argument for your case. If you cannot do it, please be silent.
From now on in the interest of peace, ignore me, and I will ignore you, for we are fundamental enemies.

Or are you suggesting that those are simply "made-up" rights that we shouldn't have, either? Because if you are, I think it might help if you go through the Constitution and parse out exactly which Amendments and provisions in the Constitution are and are not Biblically-based.
I'm not suggesting anything further than what I have said. The Bible gives what it gives, and the US has messed up where it has messed up, but why talk about it right now?

And how exactly do you know that--Genesis is the book that covers the creation of cucumbers, and it never talks about souls at all, for humans or plants. There are other books of the Bible that talk about humans having souls, but they don't mention cucumbers not having souls.
They don't talk about cucumbers having them either, so I'd reasonable say that they don't, unless cucumbers and other vegetables worship a separate deity that God never mentioned because He didn't think we'd care. But must we be so silly?

In short, I can tell you exactly why I think we have souls and cucumbers don't, but it is for the reason mentioned before: we can reason and cucumbers can't. He have the biological facility for reason, and cucumbers don't. But the same reason why we are soulful and cucumbers aren't is precisely the reason why we have rights and six-week old fetuses don't, because six-week old fetuses don't have the capacity for reason, and not reason itself. Thus, they aren't ensouled any more than said cucumber is.
Who dictates who has souls? Do you? I believe God does, and I believe that the Bible does not directly address the issue of abortion, but that it implies that we as logical human beings will figure out that anything human is human, and thus, has a soul.

Irrelevant. We don't base our notion of rights upon whether something potentially can have rights, but whether they can exercise those rights now. That's why we don't allow six-year olds to vote, even though potentially, they will have the faculties to do so twelve years down the road.
I base my notions on whether or not that fetus is a human being, and it has its rights whether or not it can exercise them. Should I be denied the right to private property just because I currently am in a situation where I can't own it? No. Human rights are fundamental and exist no matter what situation a particular human faces, whether it be in a womb or not.

If this truly were a "Christian nation" as your post suggests, then it would seem logical that this little statute in bold would never be put in the Constitution, because after all, if you want Christian laws, you don't exactly want a Hindi or a Buddhist lawmaker, now do you?
Nope, so I wouldn't vote for one. That's why we're a republic -- to protect the rights of minorities, giving them fair representation, but to still allow the majorities to run the country as it was intended to be run. The statement acts to protect the rights of minorities, but those rights are not violated if the minority simply never gets elected to office. The right is violated, however, if the minority can't at all get elected to office.

Moreover, you might want to consult your history books on something called the "English Civil War" and "Glorious Revolution". The men who wrote the Constitution knew enough about English history to know that you don't want God's law and human law to be intertwined, because invariably it leads to civil war incongruous to the general good.
That is the purpose of the first amendment. God's Law is supreme, but we don't necessarily punish those who violate. The only purpose of government is that which is dictated by God's Law -- which is to say that civil gov't has the right to bear the sword, and that its purpose is to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens. You can sin, as long as you don't mess up other people's lives.

That's because the Ninth Amendment presupposes that women have the right to abortions, at least and until 1) Congress passes a law restricting that right, and 2) the court system interprets the law as being consistent with the Constitution. You may not like it, but reality is sometimes like that.
The law's already there, that all persons have the right to life. They may have, however, a screwed-up interpretation of "person."

All except for the last phrase is merely a rehash of what I've been saying already. As for Roe, you might want to actually read the Ninth Amendment before you make such claims, because it seems entirely reasonable that on the basis of the Ninth Amendment, women have the right to privacy of person. By extension, they have the right to do what they will within reasonable means without government interference. They seem to have a very good understanding of the law, if you ask me.
Well, your statements presuppose that unborn children have rights, and I simply disagree.

The point I was trying to make is simple: there is a necessary distinction between God's law and human law, because they have different ends.
Yes, as I said earlier, such is God's Law. Civil government has a specific purpose. There is indeed a distinction between the two. But I don't think my views violate that distinction, and you assume that my views do, which I understand -- one not knowing what all of my views are would probably think I'm some sort of extremist based on what I have said in this debate alone.

Well, what is the point of all this, you might ask? Well, if there is a necessary distinction between God's law and the human law, then it seems impossible that the Constitution is based on God's law, and foolish to proclaim. God's law is purely about how to get into heaven, while human law is about how to regulate men on earth.
Same point as before -- that it is based on God's Law because God's Law places restrictions on municipal law. Indeed, human law cannot force men not to lust after their neighbor's lives, even if that's God's Law, because of God's restrictions on that human law.

Moreover, God's law is not subject to vote, which makes it imcompatible with the whole basis for democratic government: democracy itself derives from the Greek demos and kratos, meaning, in effect, people power. If law is based on what God says, then how in the Sam Hill do people have the power? The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they went out of their way to put stuff like the Article Six prohibition of religious requirements into the Constitution.
To clarify, the Greeks used democracy, which is theoretically a good idea, but in practice it's a dictatorship of the majority. The US's form of government is "republic," which is democratic in type (since people vote), but republican in form. People have the power because God does not require people to conform to His laws -- He only tells them that they should, which is why the Church is not the State, but a separate institution. The Founding Fathers were preventing religious tyranny when they wrote the Constitution. Religious tyranny is inherently unBiblical, because it places one man (a King) as the law-maker instead of God, and thus, unConstitutional as well. Why does English Common Law, and thus the Constitution, have separation of powers? --Because the Bible says that God is the SUPREME LORD, and no one else may hold that position of power.

If you're referring to the rights of the infants,
No, abortion has nothing to do with infants. Abortion deals with fetuses. And a fetus has no rights.

I doubt it'll happen too- because they're either alive or dead, and as I said they're not dead. So, what else is it if it's not life?
It's potential. Nothing more. It could become life eventually. It could also be flushed down the toilet during the woman's next period. It could be miscarried. It could be aborted. It is potential, but it is not life.

From now on in the interest of peace, ignore me, and I will ignore you, for we are fundamental enemies.
Then you admit that you are not for freedom of religion. You admit that you are for forcing everyone to believe as you do. Of course, that does make us enemies: I'm for people being able to believe as they will, but they don't have the right to force that belief on anyone else.

I'm for libery. You're for slavery. I think we all know how immoral you truly are.

Now then, please keep your silly myth out of this dicussion. It has no place here.

It's potential. Nothing more. It could become life eventually. It could also be flushed down the toilet during the woman's next period. It could be miscarried. It could be aborted. It is potential, but it is not life.

Nicely put. :)

Nicely put. :)
Thank you.

It's potential. Nothing more. It could become life eventually. It could also be flushed down the toilet during the woman's next period. It could be miscarried. It could be aborted. It is potential, but it is not life. Although I can think of a lot of live things you could flush down the toilet, I think it's time we agree to disagree- there's nothing more I could say that would help me convince you otherwise, and I don't think this debate has benefitted us except to strengthen our personal beliefs and perhaps be entertained for a few hours.
It's been fun and I'm perfectly willing to keep going if you want to but quite frankly I don't see this going anywhere. If you guys wanna call it I wanna thank you for an awesome discussion

What do you all think?

Then you admit that you are not for freedom of religion. You admit that you are for forcing everyone to believe as you do. Of course, that does make us enemies: I'm for people being able to believe as they will, but they don't have the right to force that belief on anyone else.

I'm for libery. You're for slavery. I think we all know how immoral you truly are.

Now then, please keep your silly myth out of this dicussion. It has no place here.
Quoted for truth. *bows*

Quoted for truth. *bows*Were you saying that to me? Or just to say it?
(Here we go again, lol)

Not once did I mention God in this debate. Thought I'd say that just in case...
(yes I'm a Christian but still)

Then you admit that you are not for freedom of religion. You admit that you are for forcing everyone to believe as you do. Of course, that does make us enemies: I'm for people being able to believe as they will, but they don't have the right to force that belief on anyone else.

I'm for libery. You're for slavery. I think we all know how immoral you truly are.

Now then, please keep your silly myth out of this dicussion. It has no place here.
Slavery? Not even neo-Confederates want to re-institute slavery! (They finally decided to read Exodus.) When did I admit that I'm not for religious freedom? Since when? I am for religious freedom, so why don't you respect me? How am I forcing my belief on others? Have I come to your house and threatened to slay if you don't believe what I believe? Why would I do that if I am forbidden by the Bible to? What is the "silly myth"? What is the definition of "liberty" -- anarchy, or a system where you can do as you please as long as everyone's rights are protected? How am I immoral? Is it not more obvious that you have less morals because you choose to insult me? Have you completely lost touch with your conscience and reply entirely upon your brain?

I believe this is all part of the liberal myth of the Religious Right. That is the true "silly myth." They think we're trying to make everyone else believe what we believe by force, while there is no justification for such an argument. When have we ever forced someone to convert? I converted because I listened to what they had to say and found that my liberal views, critical of society, actually stemmed from my conservative conscience, so I switched to the other side of the political spectrum, skipping over the neoconservative Republican Party.

I, on the Religious Right, think it is important to make ideas available so that people can convert if they choose. I have never imposed the sword on anybody for them to conform to my beliefs, and if I have, please show my so that I may repent to the Lord.

And finally, you, BAAWA, are not for liberty. You want to destroy all instances of religion because you dismiss it, somewhat blasphemously, as a "silly myth." You have asked me to leave because of my beliefs. Stop viewing me as a religious freak and take the time to understand what I have said. Don't reply to this until you have re-read this paragraph several times.

Actually, there is a heart rate and an ultra sound can see the heart beating.

The heart is just a muscle, nothing more.

Did you know there is a medical condition where a baby can be born with the top of it's head open? Nothing inside? Or, just a handful of 'blobs'.

"Anencephaly is a defect in the closure of the neural tube during fetal development. The neural tube is a narrow channel that folds and closes between the 3rd and 4th weeks of pregnancy to form the brain and spinal cord of the embryo. Anencephaly occurs when the "cephalic" or head end of the neural tube fails to close, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating part of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed--not covered by bone or skin. A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur...

..If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth"

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm

A child born 'without a brain' can never gain consciousness, can never feel pain, will never have 'a personality'. However, the heart can still beat, the lungs MIGHT still breathe. A heartbeat just doesn't MEAN anything.

God you really are stupid aren't you? The Brain developes during this time frame. By week 11 or 12, its synapsis forms. The baby's nerve cells are also rapidly growing as well.

And by week 14, Brain impulses gives the child's facial muscles a workout.

Once again, you make the mistake of asuming significance where there is none.

The brain doesn't come close to coherent function until at least the 20th to 22nd week, and the neural connectivity is not complete until about that same point.

Reflex actions, or misfiring connections can result in 'twitching' before that point, but there is no coherence or coordination.

Not to mention that from the moment of conception the fetus would be a US citizen. As the US has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens it would be obligated to prevent the mother from terminating the pregnancy. This would even hold true if she left the country; a state owned health service aborting the fetus could even be seen as an act of war (state-sanctioned murder of an American citizen).

Ah... that's quite simple. Obviously, pregnant women would not be ALLOWED to leave the US, JUST IN CASE they decided to get an abortion, or were 'careless' outside of US control.

Indeed... if they passed such law, a woman would be MOST safe during pregnancy, if she never left the house...

Quamia I agree with what you're saying but let's try to keep this as calm as possible. I know I've already failed a few times today but I think it's a good idea, as you said- "in the interest of peace." Same to everybody- if we could cut the insults that would be awesome. They're just not needed.
Thanks

Slavery? Not even neo-Confederates want to re-institute slavery! (They finally decided to read Exodus.) When did I admit that I'm not for religious freedom? Since when? I am for religious freedom, so why don't you respect me? How am I forcing my belief on others? Have I come to your house and threatened to slay if you don't believe what I believe? Why would I do that if I am forbidden by the Bible to? What is the "silly myth"? What is the definition of "liberty" -- anarchy, or a system where you can do as you please as long as everyone's rights are protected? How am I immoral? Is it not more obvious that you have less morals because you choose to insult me? Have you completely lost touch with your conscience and reply entirely upon your brain?

I believe this is all part of the liberal myth of the Religious Right. That is the true "silly myth." They think we're trying to make everyone else believe what we believe by force, while there is no justification for such an argument. When have we ever forced someone to convert? I converted because I listened to what they had to say and found that my liberal views, critical of society, actually stemmed from my conservative conscience, so I switched to the other side of the political spectrum, skipping over the neoconservative Republican Party.

I, on the Religious Right, think it is important to make ideas available so that people can convert if they choose. I have never imposed the sword on anybody for them to conform to my beliefs, and if I have, please show my so that I may repent to the Lord.

And finally, you, BAAWA, are not for liberty. You want to destroy all instances of religion because you dismiss it, somewhat blasphemously, as a "silly myth." You have asked me to leave because of my beliefs. Stop viewing me as a religious freak and take the time to understand what I have said. Don't reply to this until you have re-read this paragraph several times.
if you are using religion to advocate changing the law to restrict a womans right to her own reproductive freedom then you are indeed trying to force your beliefs on others. a woman wanting an abortion cant have one if its illegal eh?

when *I* advocate leaving the law as it is, ie keeping it a womans choice for her own life and her own body, i AM trying to force my beliefs on the country but that law doesnt affect YOU at all. you never have to have an abortion just because its legal. neither does anyone else who believes its murder.

if you are, however, just advocating a point of view hoping to convince women with the force of your argument that she doesnt want to have an abortion, that is your religious freedom. she isnt required to listen to you but its FINE for you to advocate it.

Although I can think of a lot of live things you could flush down the toilet, I think it's time we agree to disagree- there's nothing more I could say that would help me convince you otherwise, and I don't think this debate has benefitted us except to strengthen our personal beliefs and perhaps be entertained for a few hours.
It's been fun and I'm perfectly willing to keep going if you want to but quite frankly I don't see this going anywhere. If you guys wanna call it I wanna thank you for an awesome discussion
In other words, you've got nothing for a comeback.

There are lots of religious folks who call childbirth a miracle--they're right, but not in the way they think. There's so many possible ways that something can go wrong and the fetus doesn't make that transformation from clump of cells to living, breathing human being that it's a miracle it works as often as it does, which, if we're counting from fertilization, happens about one out of every ten times at best.

So my definition is this--until it's out there kicking on its own, it's potential. Sure, it has more potential at the moment of birth than it does at fertilization, but it's still just potential until it takes that last step. My older sister was one of those fetuses that didn't make the jump--she was stillborn, died halfway out my mother's womb in September 1967. My mom will tell you that she felt alive in the womb, that she felt Betsy's kicks, heard Betsy's heartbeat. But Betsy never lived. She never made the jump to life, despite the best efforts of the doctors attending my mom. Things can go wrong even at the last second--they do so all the time--so until that potential crosses that boundary and announces to the world that it is here, it is not alive.

whoa

maybe we can require that all women getting a visa to visit the US be injected with a very strong anti-ovulation drug or give proof of sterility/pre-existing pregnancy.

They'd have to take such medication before they were 'legally' admitted to the US, or prove their sterility in advance.

Gone would be the days of a woman being able to 'pop over to the US offices' on a business trip.

I'd imagine that would also put a crimp on the 'honeymoon' tourism industry...

Of course... there are always those that would decide that anti-ovulation drugs are unnatural, against god's will, and 'wasting a life'... somehow.

Probably best if we just don't allow women into the country at all, or only allow them in if they have a brother/uncle etc. to keep them under control.

Really? I've got a link of my own to show you:


link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development#Fetal_Development)

In case you didn't know the Thalamic brain connections are:


link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus)

In other words, the fetus isn't conscious until they're in place.

*waits patiently to be 'taken down'*

Excellent work.

Slavery? Not even neo-Confederates want to re-institute slavery!
You do. You not only want everyone to believe as you do, but you want women to be forced to carry a child to term. That, m'laddio, is slavery.


(They finally decided to read Exodus.) When did I admit that I'm not for religious freedom? Since when? I am for religious freedom, so why don't you respect me?
I respect your right to believe, but you clearly believe (as you stated) that non-xers live in the US under asylum. That means that you feel they shouldn't be here, really. You want them to be xer.


How am I forcing my belief on others?
I said you want to do it. Please learn how to read.


Why would I do that if I am forbidden by the Bible to?
You aren't.


What is the "silly myth"?
Your god-belief.


What is the definition of "liberty" -- anarchy, or a system where you can do as you please as long as everyone's rights are protected?
*sigh*

Please learn what anarchy is. Anarchy is not chaos, m'laddio. Chaos = chaos. Anarchy = anarchy.


How am I immoral?
By wanting to force your beliefs on others and make slaves of women.


Is it not more obvious that you have less morals because you choose to insult me?
No. Insults have nothing to do with morality. None.


Have you completely lost touch with your conscience and reply entirely upon your brain?
The conscience comes from the brain, m'laddio.


I believe this is all part of the liberal myth of the Religious Right. That is the true "silly myth." They think we're trying to make everyone else believe what we believe by force,
You've all but admitted that you want it.


And finally, you, BAAWA, are not for liberty.
Yes, I am.


You want to destroy all instances of religion
No, I do not.

Please don't reply until you decide to stop lying.

Be as that may, your missing a key point. The point is, that the baby is:

1) Breathing

2) Can move

3) Grasp

4) Suck

5) the heart is beating and is pumping blood

6) The Spleen is doing its business

7) The liver is making bile

All your focusing on is the brain. The brain is only one part in this entire process.

At the 16th week, the circulatory system starts to function on its own.

And you missed this part. At the 19th week, Hearing, Taste, Touch, smell, and sight are developing their spots in the brain. That is at the 19th week dude.

The brain is the only part of the process that matters. If no brain develops, you have something that looks like a person, functions in some ways like a person, but never will be.

What you are showing here, is the printer, the mouse, the monitor, the mic and headset, perhaps. If there is no processor, you STILL don't have a computer.

You and I can go around on this all day. Frankly, we're going in circles here.

You might see it as going around in circles.

Actually, my friend, you have been served.

Every 'point' you have made has been rebutted, and you've failed to find rebuttal for all the points put to you.

If you still beleive you are 'going around in circles', you might want to examine WHY you believe that. Chances are, you have made up your mind on this issue, and don't want mere 'facts' getting in the way.

They'd have to take such medication before they were 'legally' admitted to the US, or prove their sterility in advance.

Gone would be the days of a woman being able to 'pop over to the US offices' on a business trip.

I'd imagine that would also put a crimp on the 'honeymoon' tourism industry...

Of course... there are always those that would decide that anti-ovulation drugs are unnatural, against god's will, and 'wasting a life'... somehow.

Probably best if we just don't allow women into the country at all, or only allow them in if they have a brother/uncle etc. to keep them under control.
ya know, the more i think about it, the more i realize that we have to outlaw sex entirely. who knows how many dead "babies" pass unnoticed every year? we need to put everyone of breeding age on sexdrive elimination drugs and only let people have sex when they want to make a baby (in bed, in the dark, missionary position only)

if you are using religion to advocate changing the law to restrict a womans right to her own reproductive freedom then you are indeed trying to force your beliefs on others. a woman wanting an abortion cant have one if its illegal eh?

when *I* advocate leaving the law as it is, ie keeping it a womans choice for her own life and her own body, i AM trying to force my beliefs on the country but that law doesnt affect YOU at all. you never have to have an abortion just because its legal. neither does anyone else who believes its murder.

if you are, however, just advocating a point of view hoping to convince women with the force of your argument that she doesnt want to have an abortion, that is your religious freedom. she isnt required to listen to you but its FINE for you to advocate it.
But it's a republic, so (if I were in a position of power) forcing my beliefs on others is fine because I have their consent -- they elected me. Of course, minorities have representations in government to protect their rights so that I don't infringe on them. However, unborn children cannot, unfortunately, represent themselves in government, so pro-lifers take care of them.

You understand the principle of forcing beliefs on others -- the difference between true force and mere advocacy, which is what I indeed do practice. However, you said that when you force your belief on others -- that women have reproductive rights -- it may not affect me, true, but it affects the life of the unborn child. Since the unborn are, well, unborn, people like me have to fight for their continued development in the name of God.

So, essentially, this is not a matter of religious freedom -- imposing beliefs on others -- it's just a matter of what's human and what's not, which is exactly what just about everyone else is debating right now except me, since I am so easily distracted....

From now on in the interest of peace, ignore me, and I will ignore you, for we are fundamental enemies.


I'm not suggesting anything further than what I have said. The Bible gives what it gives, and the US has messed up where it has messed up, but why talk about it right now?


They don't talk about cucumbers having them either, so I'd reasonable say that they don't, unless cucumbers and other vegetables worship a separate deity that God never mentioned because He didn't think we'd care. But must we be so silly?


Who dictates who has souls? Do you? I believe God does, and I believe that the Bible does not directly address the issue of abortion, but that it implies that we as logical human beings will figure out that anything human is human, and thus, has a soul.


I base my notions on whether or not that fetus is a human being, and it has its rights whether or not it can exercise them. Should I be denied the right to private property just because I currently am in a situation where I can't own it? No. Human rights are fundamental and exist no matter what situation a particular human faces, whether it be in a womb or not.


Nope, so I wouldn't vote for one. That's why we're a republic -- to protect the rights of minorities, giving them fair representation, but to still allow the majorities to run the country as it was intended to be run. The statement acts to protect the rights of minorities, but those rights are not violated if the minority simply never gets elected to office. The right is violated, however, if the minority can't at all get elected to office.


That is the purpose of the first amendment. God's Law is supreme, but we don't necessarily punish those who violate. The only purpose of government is that which is dictated by God's Law -- which is to say that civil gov't has the right to bear the sword, and that its purpose is to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens. You can sin, as long as you don't mess up other people's lives.


The law's already there, that all persons have the right to life. They may have, however, a screwed-up interpretation of "person."


Well, your statements presuppose that unborn children have rights, and I simply disagree.


Yes, as I said earlier, such is God's Law. Civil government has a specific purpose. There is indeed a distinction between the two. But I don't think my views violate that distinction, and you assume that my views do, which I understand -- one not knowing what all of my views are would probably think I'm some sort of extremist based on what I have said in this debate alone.


Same point as before -- that it is based on God's Law because God's Law places restrictions on municipal law. Indeed, human law cannot force men not to lust after their neighbor's lives, even if that's God's Law, because of God's restrictions on that human law.


To clarify, the Greeks used democracy, which is theoretically a good idea, but in practice it's a dictatorship of the majority. The US's form of government is "republic," which is democratic in type (since people vote), but republican in form. People have the power because God does not require people to conform to His laws -- He only tells them that they should, which is why the Church is not the State, but a separate institution. The Founding Fathers were preventing religious tyranny when they wrote the Constitution. Religious tyranny is inherently unBiblical, because it places one man (a King) as the law-maker instead of God, and thus, unConstitutional as well. Why does English Common Law, and thus the Constitution, have separation of powers? --Because the Bible says that God is the SUPREME LORD, and no one else may hold that position of power.

No, I do not think you are an extremist. I simply think that what you are arguing borders on incoherent gibberish because you haven't thought enough of it through to its end.

On the one hand, you want to argue that it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a distinction between divine law and human law, based on the fact that there are some things divine law stipulates that human law simply cannot accomplish, and diminishes the function of human law to attempt. On the other, you want to argue that abortion should be made illegal for no other reason than because it's a violation of divine law, without seeing of course that abortion is probably one of those things divine law and human law are going to differ on.

On the one hand, you want to argue the sensible position that religious tyranny is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and respect for human rights. On the other, you want to argue that this nation is fundamentally Christian-only, without of course recognizing the democratic nature of the government.

On the one hand, you want to the sensible position that people will be able to use reason to infer the ensoulment of humans. On the other, you then want to debate with me without evidence the ensoulment of fetuses when I use my reason to conclude that, because fetuses prior to a certain date lack the capacity for rationality, they lack a soul.

It sounds as if you want to accept every one of the premises that I'm using in my argument (which I don't find surprising, since I'm pretty much using straight Locke, Aquinas, and Augustine), but not the conclusion that naturally follows from them. It's just illogical.

In other words, you've got nothing for a comeback.

There are lots of religious folks who call childbirth a miracle--they're right, but not in the way they think. There's so many possible ways that something can go wrong and the fetus doesn't make that transformation from clump of cells to living, breathing human being that it's a miracle it works as often as it does, which, if we're counting from fertilization, happens about one out of every ten times at best.

So my definition is this--until it's out there kicking on its own, it's potential. Sure, it has more potential at the moment of birth than it does at fertilization, but it's still just potential until it takes that last step. My older sister was one of those fetuses that didn't make the jump--she was stillborn, died halfway out my mother's womb in September 1967. My mom will tell you that she felt alive in the womb, that she felt Betsy's kicks, heard Betsy's heartbeat. But Betsy never lived. She never made the jump to life, despite the best efforts of the doctors attending my mom. Things can go wrong even at the last second--they do so all the time--so until that potential crosses that boundary and announces to the world that it is here, it is not alive.I am truly sorry you lost your sister, and I'm not just saying that. Really. But I still think pre-natal babies are in fact babies, (if you want to call them human embryos then I still think they're human), and that because of that, it should be illegal to kill them. Whether they are born or not, they are in fact human. Whether their potential works out in the end or not, they are human and deserve at least the chance to succeed.
No, I am not out of ideas and arguments and thoughts and whatever else. As I said, niether of us (as far as I can see) is going to change the other's mind, even if we were to debate 'til we were blue in the face. Evidently we're gonna keep going though, so let's keep goin. I just ask that no one gets angry and dishes out insults, because that's what kills a decent debate. If we're gonna keep goin, let's do it peacefully. I'll be back in half an hour or so to continue

We already regulate what pregnant women consume, and we hold them liable for their actions during pregnancy, such as, narcotics and maybe if a child suffers from severe infant alcohol syndrome. If it ever goes far as to include unhealthy choices, like smoking and a diet consisting of entirely artifically flavored lard, then that will be an issue in and of itself, seperate from the abortion issue.


No, it really won't. It will be part of this same issue, because that is the agenda that the anti-abortion crowd pushes... the poor defenceless blob of cells at the murderous hands of the cruel inhuman female.


Sure we can. Temporary required responsibility for of ones self health.


In which case, either the state or a 'responsible' person, takes effective 'control' of the situation... usually because the 'patient' has diminished responsibility. At no point are two persons actually 'contesting' the rights of the body. (And, if they are, it's an aberration of the principle, because one should only take over the 'capacity' of another when that other cannot take the capacity for themselves).


The population of America would not sky rocket, only about a million abortions a year occur now. I suspect that after an initial surge birth rates might recover quickly to current rates (with better application and development of anti-ovulating medications for women and the need for anti-sperm producing male medications, the demand for such will quickly become far more requested and thus, more popular. Much more research money will then be put into it, reducing the overall 'unwanted' pregnancy occurrences).


What kind of dreamworld do you live in? Why would research money be put into 'anti-sperm' medicines? Many of the people who argue AGAINST abortion, ALSO oppose contraception on 'moral' (meaning, not moral, necessarily, but 'religious') grounds. I think you are also kidding yourself, if you think that 'unwanted pregnancies' would be reduced if there WERE effective anti-sperm medication... unless you believe that any form of contraception is 100% effective... and THAT is only relevent if the people remember to take it...



As to the immigration and US born citizenship laws, that's a different topic, there are bills today to change even the automatic 'born-in-America' clause (which I happen to be against changing, but thats a different issue). But the point is, that's a different topic.

No - it's really NOT a different topic. At the moment, the start of legal personhood is birth. AT that point, the US government recognises the nationality of a child. So - a child born in the USA is an American, no matter where his/her parents are from.

If you change the definition of 'person', to include foetus, you also change the point at which citizenship MUST be recognised. And - whichever point in gestation you decide counts as 'a person' (and, many SEEM to be arguing for the very instant after the first complete 'cell' is formed) - that is the point at which you must decide legal 'status'.

But it's a republic, so (if I were in a position of power) forcing my beliefs on others is fine because I have their consent -- they elected me. Of course, minorities have representations in government to protect their rights so that I don't infringe on them. However, unborn children cannot, unfortunately, represent themselves in government, so pro-lifers take care of them.

You understand the principle of forcing beliefs on others -- the difference between true force and mere advocacy, which is what I indeed do practice. However, you said that when you force your belief on others -- that women have reproductive rights -- it may not affect me, true, but it affects the life of the unborn child. Since the unborn are, well, unborn, people like me have to fight for their continued development in the name of God.

So, essentially, this is not a matter of religious freedom -- imposing beliefs on others -- it's just a matter of what's human and what's not, which is exactly what just about everyone else is debating right now except me, since I am so easily distracted....

So basically you want to be a theocrat tyrant that imposes his "divine" law on everyone and you don'tunderstand the concept of freedom.

But it's a republic, so (if I were in a position of power) forcing my beliefs on others is fine because I have their consent -- they elected me. Of course, minorities have representations in government to protect their rights so that I don't infringe on them. However, unborn children cannot, unfortunately, represent themselves in government, so pro-lifers take care of them.
this is why we have a constitutional republic. so that the majority is limited in how it can force itself on the minority.

and even if you COULD change the constitution to remove our right to privacy, our right to reproductive freedom and our right to make our own medical decisions, you would STILL be forcing your beliefs on other and putting women into a state of slavery to their pregnancies.

why deny that that is exactly what you would hope for?



You understand the principle of forcing beliefs on others -- the difference between true force and mere advocacy, which is what I indeed do practice. However, you said that when you force your belief on others -- that women have reproductive rights -- it may not affect me, true, but it affects the life of the unborn child. Since the unborn are, well, unborn, people like me have to fight for their continued development in the name of God.

there IS no child when a woman can legally get an abortion, there is only potential. when the fetus is developed enough to be viable--so that it could be born and survive--abortions are only done out of medical necessity.


So, essentially, this is not a matter of religious freedom -- imposing beliefs on others -- it's just a matter of what's human and what's not, which is exactly what just about everyone else is debating right now except me, since I am so easily distracted....
if it werent a matter of religion, you wouldnt be fighting abortion in the name of god.

there is no doubt that an emrbryo is HUMAN, it sure isnt a fish. it is no more a BABY or a PERSON than the unfertilized egg and sperm it came from are.

This is ridiculous. How can you say that the fetus is not human. It's a medical FACT. It is very small and simple, but it has a soul and will develop into an adult. Quite frankly I find it ridiculous that its simplicity makes it an object to murder at will. OF COURSE it isnt conscious, but it will be, just as I am unconcious when I am asleep. Do you think that anyone asleep should be mudered?
Also, begging your most august pardons, how is the pro-life movement "imposing its morallity" unjustly. ALL LAWS IMPOSE MORALITY.

The only way to be logically pro-death is to be an anarchist who believes that the human person has no value. GOD BLESS SOUTH DAKOTA.

You do realise that, despite your capital letters and protestations... "It has a soul" is, actually, not a medically ascertainable 'fact'?


Just because you went there... but, what convinced you that "anarchists" believe "that the human person has no value"?

To me... it looks like you have been working on the hollow rhetoric, but have neglected to relate it to the 'medical facts' you claim, or to an understanding of what the terms you use (like 'anarchist') actually mean.

I have. I know what rights are. Please read up about contractarianism, especially the works of David Gauthier and Jan Narveson.

You assume that, just because I don't care, I don't understand?

The assertion that there IS such a thing as a 'right' (especially a 'fundamental human right') is logically unsupportable... it requires that you recognise an assumed correlation between one individual in utter isolation, and any individual within a society.

You may get excited about David Gauthier or Jan Narveson... that doesn't actually make their ideas objectively 'right'.

Our laws come from the Bible. That's where our Founders looked when they were constructing our country. The reason why the sixth amendment forbids religion tests is because that is also a Biblical principle -- Christians give asylum to anyone, even if this anyone is not necessarily Christian. However, we were founded such that we, Christians, elect Christians to government so that Christian laws remain the law of the land. Non-Christians have our asylum but still have to abide by Biblical and Constitutional law. Our law had to be based on something, and the answer is simply Christianity because our forefathers were Christians..

Actually, our forefathers were Deists, not Christians.

And, while there are parallels in law, our laws do not come from the Bible, but from the assembled common laws of our mother-nations.

As to why the US tends to elect Christians to government, it is nothing to do with founders or Constitution. It is more to do with simple religious partisanship, and, for some, an idea that a Christian SHOULD be a good person.

You do. You not only want everyone to believe as you do, but you want women to be forced to carry a child to term. That, m'laddio, is slavery.

I respect your right to believe, but you clearly believe (as you stated) that non-xers live in the US under asylum. That means that you feel they shouldn't be here, really. You want them to be xer.

I said you want to do it. Please learn how to read.

You aren't.

Your god-belief.

*sigh*

Please learn what anarchy is. Anarchy is not chaos, m'laddio. Chaos = chaos. Anarchy = anarchy.

By wanting to force your beliefs on others and make slaves of women.

No. Insults have nothing to do with morality. None.

The conscience comes from the brain, m'laddio.

You've all but admitted that you want it.

Yes, I am.

No, I do not.

Please don't reply until you decide to stop lying.
Since when does "Yes" or "No" constitute a formidable answer? The big queston is: Can you prove it?

"You do. You not only want everyone to believe as you do, but you want women to be forced to carry a child to term. That, m'laddio, is slavery." (Please don't call me "m'laddio" because it's annoying.) It is not slavery becuase I do not own women. They own me....

Now, if I had a child, I am obligated to raise it properly no matter how horrible it is. I can't just be driving one day, ask them to get out, and then keep on driving to the next country. It's not difference if the child is inside you -- you're just taking care of it as you would anyone else.

"I respect your right to believe, but you clearly believe (as you stated) that non-xers live in the US under asylum. That means that you feel they shouldn't be here, really. You want them to be xer." I plead guilty to those specific statements. You see, if you were a Christian, you wouldn't be such a jerk to me. However, that I would be very happy with a Christian Universe does not mean that I would violate God's Law to achieve that end -- using force is forbidden. I can only preach the Gospel, make ideas available, etc., in the hopes that people will listen. Otherwise, what is the point of a church if not to spread the religion?

"Insults have nothing to do with morality." Excuse me?

On the one hand, you want to argue that it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a distinction between divine law and human law, based on the fact that there are some things divine law stipulates that human law simply cannot accomplish, and diminishes the function of human law to attempt. On the other, you want to argue that abortion should be made illegal for no other reason than because it's a violation of divine law, without seeing of course that abortion is probably one of those things divine law and human law are going to differ on.
My belief that abortion is illegal actually does not necessarily stem from divine law, even if there is some influence (which there should always be). I just think the unborn child is a person.

On the one hand, you want to argue the sensible position that religious tyranny is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and respect for human rights. On the other, you want to argue that this nation is fundamentally Christian-only, without of course recognizing the democratic nature of the government.
Not Christian-ONLY, just fundamentally a Christian society. It can still be a republican society if pretty much everyone is Christian, as long as they don't violate other peoples' rights, which is a Christian moral (that you can't impose beliefs on others, just advocate them).

On the one hand, you want to the sensible position that people will be able to use reason to infer the ensoulment of humans. On the other, you then want to debate with me without evidence the ensoulment of fetuses when I use my reason to conclude that, because fetuses prior to a certain date lack the capacity for rationality, they lack a soul.
The supporting evidence for your argument is correct, but I just disagree with your conclusion. Whether or not humans have to use logic to figure out anything, I still simply think the fetus, or the embryo, or the zygote, has a soul. I don't make any distinction between a blob of cells with 46 human chromosomes or a human-shaped "thing," be it in or out of the womb.

What do you think about partial-birth abortions? If we don't agree about conception, I'm sure even pro-choice people can understand that sucking the brains out of a baby is an idea so grotesque that I want to faint right now so that I don't have to think about it anymore.

You assume that, just because I don't care, I don't understand?

The assertion that there IS such a thing as a 'right' (especially a 'fundamental human right') is logically unsupportable... it requires that you recognise an assumed correlation between one individual in utter isolation, and any individual within a society.

You may get excited about David Gauthier or Jan Narveson... that doesn't actually make their ideas objectively 'right'.

I wanted to take the opportunity to quote and agree with you, it doesn't happen often, but hey, when they do I can

/signed ;)

Especially just before quoting you in another post I’m about to disagree with.

*laughs*

You have no idea how ignorant you are, bubby.

I know there are things I do not know however I do know what I'm talking about in regards to what you are saying.

No--there are only ways to INFRINGE upon rights.

You can take rights away. Black rights were taken away. Then they were given back to them.

I suggest you read up about contractarianism. Might help to know something about the topic you're trying to expound upon. I, OTOH, know more about this than you could ever hope to. So please don't be a poseur.

oh puhlease. You know next to nothing about this and it is quite obvious.

No, they did not.

Yes they did.

*laughs*

Now apologize to me for the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about yet act as if you do.

Sorry. I will not apologize. Nothing to apologize for.

Wow... you missed it even after it was explained to you...

It MIGHT have been an implied insult IF Corneliu was being consistent. Which he wasn't. That was kind of the point...

I already agreed to 'drop this' topic, so, if you will simply read further along there, you will see later that I clearly do not believe that TCT actually meant to imply that C is smarter than average, which is what he technically said. Regardless, I don't think it is what was meant to be implied. And I stand by that assessment. But I dropped it because the point was made… the point being, I was trying to head off ‘intentional and derogatory nastiness’ in the thread by a person that others would emulate.

They are wrong.

1) Mother

2) Doctor

Seems like two people to me! Unless you want to include a nurse then three or more. :D

1) Mother

2) Doctor

Seems like two people to me! Unless you want to include a nurse then three or more. :D
You're late. I made that comment about three pages ago. :D

You understand the principle of forcing beliefs on others -- the difference between true force and mere advocacy, which is what I indeed do practice. However, you said that when you force your belief on others -- that women have reproductive rights -- it may not affect me, true, but it affects the life of the unborn child.
It has no rights. The woman has the right of self-ownership. That's all that needs to be said.

You're assuming, of course, that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts will have respect for the previous decisions. What you're basing that assumption is beyond me, however.

Didn't roberts already answer that question?

I am truly sorry you lost your sister, and I'm not just saying that. Really. But I still think pre-natal babies are in fact babies, (if you want to call them human embryos then I still think they're human), and that because of that, it should be illegal to kill them. Whether they are born or not, they are in fact human. Whether their potential works out in the end or not, they are human and deserve at least the chance to succeed.
And the woman loses her right of self-ownership in the process.

Doesn't sound very good.

You assume that, just because I don't care, I don't understand?
I know that since you haven't read about contractarianism you don't understand the concept of rights.


The assertion that there IS such a thing as a 'right' (especially a 'fundamental human right') is logically unsupportable
1. I never asserted a "fundamental human right".
2. Rights are quite logically supportable.


You may get excited about David Gauthier or Jan Narveson... that doesn't actually make their ideas objectively 'right'.
And you would do well to read their works.

Until then, whatever you have to say on the topic is done out of ignorance.

Didn't roberts already answer that question?
Like you can believe anything anyone says in a confirmation hearing--Thomas said the same thing back when he was confirmed, and the first chance he got, he voted to overturn.

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

If a man causes an abortion/miscarriage, he should be punished because God values life before birth. I could add more quotes but I would prefer short replies.


Well, first of all, I don't like your version, so let's quote another trasnlation:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life"

Now... you may argue it one way, but I see something quite different.

The 'mischief' that 'follows' is not to the 'child', but to the 'woman'. Thus - if, in the cause of a fight, a woman is injured, and loses her 'baby'... but she is okay, there is no transgression UNLESS the 'husband' demands it.

Look at the text "he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him". Thus, if the 'husband' does not object, there is no 'crime'. And, you'll note, the 'payment' the judges determine, is CONTINGENT on that 'punishment' being considered necessary by the 'husband'.


Last point I wish to make, at this juncture... the conditions of the text state EXPLICITLY, that this ONLY applies in the case of accidental harm, caused by men fighting. Medical abortion would not be 'covered'.


This evolutionary view of law is a direct result of Charles Darwin's influence; now everyone thinks that , obviously.

Herbert Spenser, actually.

You're late. I made that comment about three pages ago. :D

Sorry was cleaning my dorm room and didn't get this far before posting :D

Like you can believe anything anyone says in a confirmation hearing--Thomas said the same thing back when he was confirmed, and the first chance he got, he voted to overturn.

Well I don't know anything about Thomas's Confirmation Hearing other than the fact that he's on the bench with a Not Qualified (I think) from the ABA.

Sorry was cleaning my dorm room and didn't get this far before posting :D
I thought cleaning dorm rooms was against the rules. They're used as bacteria farms for the biology department.

Since when does "Yes" or "No" constitute a formidable answer? The big queston is: Can you prove it?
What am I supposed to prove, m'laddio?


"You do. You not only want everyone to believe as you do, but you want women to be forced to carry a child to term. That, m'laddio, is slavery."(Please don't call me "m'laddio" because it's annoying.) It is not slavery becuase I do not own women.
Non sequitur. Just because you don't own the women doesn't mean they aren't enslaved to the fetus.


Now, if I had a child, I am obligated to raise it properly no matter how horrible it is.
No, you don't. But there are consequences if you don't provide certain things.


I can't just be driving one day, ask them to get out, and then keep on driving to the next country. It's not difference if the child is inside you -- you're just taking care of it as you would anyone else.
The difference is the fetus is within the womb (property) of a being with self-ownership.


"I respect your right to believe, but you clearly believe (as you stated) that non-xers live in the US under asylum. That means that you feel they shouldn't be here, really. You want them to be xer." I plead guilty to those specific statements. You see, if you were a Christian, you wouldn't be such a jerk to me.
Tell that to people like Jason Gastrich, Mark Harpt, Gene Cook, and Kent Hovind.

Now then, it's no use trying a No True Scotsman fallacy.


However, that I would be very happy with a Christian Universe does not mean that I would violate God's Law to achieve that end -- using force is forbidden.
No, jesus is quite clear that people who don't want god to rule over them shall be killed (parable of the talents, Lk 19:13-27).


"Insults have nothing to do with morality." Excuse me?
Did you fart?


My belief that abortion is illegal actually does not necessarily stem from divine law,
Then why do you keep asserting that it does come from divine law?


even if there is some influence (which there should always be). I just think the unborn child is a person.
Yet you have no evidence to back your claim.


Not Christian-ONLY, just fundamentally a Christian society.
It isn't that, either.

Who dictates who has souls? Do you? I believe God does, and I believe that the Bible does not directly address the issue of abortion, but that it implies that we as logical human beings will figure out that anything human is human, and thus, has a soul.


If you accept the authority of the Bible, actually ALL animals have souls.

Also, of course, the argument about 'souls' ONLY matters if you accept the possibility of a 'soul'. If you think it is religious claptrap, you are obviously not going to be too bothered by someone shouting "But, what about it's soul?"

So basically you want to be a theocrat tyrant that imposes his "divine" law on everyone and you don'tunderstand the concept of freedom.
If you all elect me, and I can do whatever I want, what should I do about this issue of murder? All these murderers want murder legalized. They have their freedoms, right? My personal belief, that murder is wrong, should not play into my rulings. Murder should be legalized because murderers do not hold the same beliefs that I do.

What is wrong with the above paragraph? Are you aware that murder is wrong because of divine law? Where do people get their right to life, from some dead white men? Where did those dead white men get a right to life? The answer is from God. A theocracy, by the way, is both unConstitutional and unBiblical.

this is why we have a constitutional republic. so that the majority is limited in how it can force itself on the minority.

and even if you COULD change the constitution to remove our right to privacy, our right to reproductive freedom and our right to make our own medical decisions, you would STILL be forcing your beliefs on other and putting women into a state of slavery to their pregnancies.

why deny that that is exactly what you would hope for?
The Constitution limits the federal gov't because God limits the federal gov't in the Bible. The Bible has more to it than just a few rules and respective punishments for people. And I would not have to change the Constitution to take away the "right" to an abortion -- it's already unConstitutional.

Is murder a medical decision?

Actually, our forefathers were Deists, not Christians.
That is a myth that came about as a result of historical revisionism. Instead of listing every one of them, I'll just quote Jefferson, who is widely viewed is the biggest deist: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus--very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature."

I know there are things I do not know however I do know what I'm talking about in regards to what you are saying.
No, you do not.


You can take rights away. Black rights were taken away.
No--they were infringed upon.

Please read about contractarianism. Anything further you have to say about this without that background is simply out of ignorance.

I thought cleaning dorm rooms was against the rules. They're used as bacteria farms for the biology department.

LOL! My mother would kill me (looks at subject of thread and cringes) if she were to find that :D

No, you do not.



No--they were infringed upon.

Please read about contractarianism. Anything further you have to say about this without that background is simply out of ignorance.

No they were taken away. They were not given back for centuries. Learn some history buddy.

I
That is a myth that came about as a result of historical revisionism. Instead of listing every one of them, I'll just quote Jefferson,
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

No they were taken away.
No, they were infringed upon, and the infringement didn't stop for several centuries.

Learn some history, buddy.

ya know, the more i think about it, the more i realize that we have to outlaw sex entirely. who knows how many dead "babies" pass unnoticed every year? we need to put everyone of breeding age on sexdrive elimination drugs and only let people have sex when they want to make a baby (in bed, in the dark, missionary position only)

Crazy thing is... I actually agree with the principle.

I think we SHOULD put EVERYONE on some form of chemical sterilisation, automatically, from the day they are born.

That way, it doesn't matter whether it's teenage experimentation, a wife that can't refuse a husband, a rape, yet another rural Georgia thirteen-year-old being brought in pregnant with daddy's baby... whatever... at least the whole 'pregnant' issue would be taken out of the (already difficult enough) situation.

Then, people could have sex if they wanted, without having to worry about the ogre of unwanted pregnancy... and you could apply for a short-term reversal of your chemical sterilisation, if you wanted a child.

No more pregnant thirteen-year-olds. It'd be worth it, just for that.

No, they were infringed upon, and the infringement didn't stop for several centuries.

Learn some history, buddy.

I know my history. It is you that doesn't.

But it's a republic, so (if I were in a position of power) forcing my beliefs on others is fine because I have their consent -- they elected me.

Okay.... so you get elected in one area... but you impose laws on OTHER citizens? You sure as hell don't have MY consent.

I wanted to take the opportunity to quote and agree with you, it doesn't happen often, but hey, when they do I can

/signed ;)

Especially just before quoting you in another post I’m about to disagree with.

Hey, we ARE allowed to agree on some subjects.

What I've found, on the forum, as in real life, is that most of the people you will meet, you can agree with on SOME issues... but probably not on all.

The thing to remember is, we are each just a person... and what you are fighting is the ISSUE, not the person. :)

If you all elect me, and I can do whatever I want, what should I do about this issue of murder? All these murderers want murder legalized. They have their freedoms, right? My personal belief, that murder is wrong, should not play into my rulings. Murder should be legalized because murderers do not hold the same beliefs that I do.
Right to swing ones fist extends as far as your neighbors face. Its something the supreme court has stated before and is one of the better sayings thats come out of the court.

What is wrong with the above paragraph? Are you aware that murder is wrong because of divine law? Where do people get their right to life, from some dead white men? Where did those dead white men get a right to life? The answer is from God. A theocracy, by the way, is both unConstitutional and unBiblical.
Well you say we get those rights from god. I don't believe that and you really shouldn't be stating opinions as facts.


The Constitution limits the federal gov't because God limits the federal gov't in the Bible. The Bible has more to it than just a few rules and respective punishments for people. And I would not have to change the Constitution to take away the "right" to an abortion -- it's already unConstitutional.
No the Consitiution limits the federal government to stop any tyranny the like of what the founding fathers were fighting against to occur in the US.

I already agreed to 'drop this' topic, so, if you will simply read further along there, you will see later that I clearly do not believe that TCT actually meant to imply that C is smarter than average, which is what he technically said. Regardless, I don't think it is what was meant to be implied. And I stand by that assessment. But I dropped it because the point was made… the point being, I was trying to head off ‘intentional and derogatory nastiness’ in the thread by a person that others would emulate.

Actually... you must have nipped in there REAL quick... because, if you look back, that post got canned.

(I replied before I saw that everyone had agreed to 'kill it'... and then, I killed my reply in response). :)

The Constitution limits the federal gov't because God limits the federal gov't in the Bible. The Bible has more to it than just a few rules and respective punishments for people. And I would not have to change the Constitution to take away the "right" to an abortion -- it's already unConstitutional.

now i think you are going to have to quote me chapter and verse about the limits god put on the federal government.

unfortunately for you, your opinion of what is and isnt constitutional doesnt matter, the supreme court's does. therefore there IS a constitutional right to abortion (privacy really) whether you like it or not.


Is murder a medical decision?


no. but abortion is.

I know that since you haven't read about contractarianism you don't understand the concept of rights.


This makes no sense, I'm afraid.... just because (you claim) I haven't read one book that YOU think is important, you think that would somehow mean I couldn't understand the concepts involved?

That's not a logical premise.

I've read "Morals by Agreement", some time ago... I don't know if I could discuss the content intimately... but I seem to remember it asserts social rights of society stemming from 'individual rights', with a mitigator of 'contracting' to a specific society. I agree with half of that theory... but I do not accept the premise of 'individual rights'.

If all you have for response is these throwaway one liners (that are not even logically true), you are wating my time.



1. I never asserted a "fundamental human right".
2. Rights are quite logically supportable.


1. I didn't say you DID assert a 'fundamental human right'. Believe it or not, the universe does not circle around you. I responded about rights, and made special mention of what I consider a greater logical flaw than all the rest. I didn't say it was YOUR flaw.

2. No, they are not. Unless you think you have some logical proof to the contrary. I'd be interested to see what you think would be the support... but I suspect all I'd get would be another cheap one liner... so save us both the time and energy?


And you would do well to read their works.

Until then, whatever you have to say on the topic is done out of ignorance.

Whatever. You are far too convinced of your superiority, friend... and, again and again, I see that come back to kick your ass.

I know my history. It is you that doesn't.
*laughs*

You're simply not grasping the distinction between PERMISSION and RIGHTS.

There's a big difference. You really need to learn it. Permission can be taken away/revoked/removed. Rights are elucidations of the hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals in which we create group-rules (morality).

This makes no sense, I'm afraid....
But it does make sense without your strawman.


I've read "Morals by Agreement", some time ago... I don't know if I could discuss the content intimately... but I seem to remember it asserts social rights of society stemming from 'individual rights', with a mitigator of 'contracting' to a specific society. I agree with half of that theory... but I do not accept the premise of 'individual rights'.
Then you do not accept morality at all.

If all you have is "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong", you're just wasting my time.


1. I didn't say you DID assert a 'fundamental human right'.
Then why did you mention it?


2. No, they are not.
Yes they are.

You can save me the time and just say "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong".

When you know what you're talking about, please get back to me.

*laughs*

You're simply not grasping the distinction between PERMISSION and RIGHTS.

I know the difference between the two. Having a drivers license is permission. Having a fair trial is right. Education is a privelage, Religious Freedom is a Right.

There's a big difference. You really need to learn it. Permission can be taken away/revoked/removed. Rights are elucidations of the hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals in which we create group-rules (morality).

I think I'll go with Grave n Idle on this one: "If all you have for response is these throwaway one liners (that are not even logically true), you are wasting my time."

I know the difference between the two. Having a drivers license is permission. Having a fair trial is right. Education is a privelage, Religious Freedom is a Right.
Then why do you think rights can be taken away?

If you're just going to come back with "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong", stop posting to me.

Then why do you think rights can be taken away?

Freedom of Religion can be taken away with a constitutional amendment and appropriate legislation! That is taking away a right.

Right to a free press can be taken away with a constitutional Amendment followed by appropriate legislation. That is taking away a right.

Owning Fire Arms can be taken away with a constitutional amendment and appropriate legislation. That is taking away a right.

If you're just going to come back with "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong", stop posting to me.

No that is what you are coming back with.

Come on poeple... this is why I proposed ending this an hour ago- you're not even debating the original debate at all anymore- all I'm reading is stuff like "you haven't read this book so you don't know what you're talking about." "You need to learn some history." Is it necessary? I told you no one would change their mind. Has anyone? No. Let's have a decent debate, shall we? The last couple pages have been trash as far as I can tell. Please? I'm talking to both sides right now.

Freedom of Religion can be taken away with a constitutional amendment and appropriate legislation!
No, it can only be INFRINGED UPON.

The right still exists--the government is just stomping on it.

I'm wondering why you can't grasp this Very Simple Concept.

I'm wondering why you can't grasp this Very Simple Concept.Come on now... seriously what's wrong with listening to what I just said?

But it does make sense without your strawman.


I don't see a strawman there, my friend... and I really don't see how you think it makes sense.

Would it be beyond you to actually debate the issues?


Then you do not accept morality at all.

If all you have is "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong", you're just wasting my time.


Now, THIS is a strawman. I 'do not accept morality at all', is what you get from my argument? I guess that would depend what you mean... if you mean an OBJECTIVE morality, then you would be right... but, if you mean 'morality, at all', then you would be pretty off-base.

Although, how you got there, from what I said... I don't know.

But, then... I'm not sure where you got "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong" from, either. I do not accept certain propositions by certain persons, because I do not justify the same assumptions they make. I see no logical reason to support (and a host of logical reasons to reject) 'individual rights'... so ANY theory that is going to use that as it's basis, is going to have to convince me of that principle, or is going to have to be OBJECTIVE enough that the theory stands with or without it.


Then why did you mention it?


I mentioned 'rights' as being logically unsupportable. Of these, the 'most' unsupportable is the idea of a 'fundamental human right'.


Yes they are.

You can save me the time and just say "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong".


"Yes they are" is not an argument that supports human rights. It's a contradiction of the negative... but provides nothing. And, then to repeat the same tired Strawman.... tsk tsk.

Really, dude... either put up or shut up.

If you have nothing to add to the debate, let me know, so I can just start skipping straight over your posts.

(I'll take another barrage of un-qualified one-liners as admission that you wish to 'opt-out', or that you are incapable of the depth of debate I demand.)

When you know what you're talking about, please get back to me.

Thanks for that. I was a little saddened by the rest of the post, but that made me smile.

No, it can only be INFRINGED UPON.

The right still exists--the government is just stomping on it.

I'm wondering why you can't grasp this Very Simple Concept.

Big Assertion. (With Capitals, no less).

But you still have provided no 'evidence' to support your claim.

That's the thing about debate... if you don't bring anything to the table to support your claims, it is actually acceptable to ignore those claims. That means, as it stands, there is no merit to your "Very Simple Concept".

This is hardly worth reading anymore. I'm not about to say "let's be happy and sing songs of peace together" but this is ridiculous. It's getting annoying to see how ignored I am now.

No, it can only be INFRINGED UPON.

The right still exists--the government is just stomping on it.

I'm wondering why you can't grasp this Very Simple Concept.

GAH!!! I give up. Someone here doesn't know a damn thing about rights and privaleges and I know I'm not talking about me.

I believe abortion should be banned. I dont see how we as a society can deny the rights of someone to live(I consider a baby living, considering that it is capable of self reproduction ie. cell division), when in all other circumstances, except capital punishment, it is illegal to end someone's life.

What say you?


Note: I am one of those people who have no morals and would murder and rape people if the laws of society didn't forbid it, however I dislike hypocrisy and the idea of dead babies freak me out.

I must admit, though I am pro-choice, the arguments are very similar
Blacks being less than human compared to fetuses being less than human, but I still think the government should stay out of this issue

I must admit, though I am pro-choice, the arguments are very similar
Blacks being less than human compared to fetuses being less than human, but I still think the government should stay out of this issue

On what basis? Why do you think this way?

On what basis? Why do you think this way?

I have the right to own property and a logical extension of this is that my body is my own property which I may do with as I please. So if a fetus is not a human/person and I have as the supreme court so eloquently put the right to swing my fist as far as my neighbor's nose then abortion is something a person has a right to do when it comes to dealing with their body/property.

I have the right to own property and a logical extension of this is that my body is my own property which I may do with as I please. So if a fetus is not a human/person and I have as the supreme court so eloquently put the right to swing my fist as far as my neighbor's nose then abortion is something a person has a right to do when it comes to dealing with their body/property.

Can you justify to me that a fetus is your property? I would also like to note that the government makes it illegal to do things to your body and property regardless of whether or not you own them. Arson is a felony even if you own the building, usage of certain drugs is also illegal. Nothing in the constitution says "you can do whatever you want with what you own", simply that you can own things. I would like to argue that a fetus is a human being. It has the DNA of a human and is unique to itself(with the exception of twins), it is clearly living by a scientific definition of the word, and clearly not a part of your body since it isnt identical to your DNA.

I have the right to own property and a logical extension of this is that my body is my own property which I may do with as I please. So if a fetus is not a human/person and I have as the supreme court so eloquently put the right to swing my fist as far as my neighbor's nose then abortion is something a person has a right to do when it comes to dealing with their body/property.A fetus is not a part of your body. It is a developing organism depending on your body, just as parasites and bacteria. If it's an organism, that means it's either alive or dead. Obviously it's not bacteria or a parasite, so what is it? Human! We've all had discussions on whether those humans are alive or not, but the point is it's human. I made this next argument before but I'll make it again- if it's in the development stage then it is growing. Can non-living organisms grow (I know our fingernails continue to grow for a short while after we die but that doesn't count cuz they're not organisms)? No! So that means the organism in your body is not only human, but growing and, most importantly, alive. Which means although it is merely a fetus inside you and not born yet, it is, put flatly and honestly, murder to "do as you please."

hmm, medical clinic inwhich everything is sanitized or in a back alley with a coathanger,
apparently south dakota prefers the coathanger, or falling stomach first off a flight of stairs
goodjob s. dakota, setting a good example for us all

hmm, medical clinic inwhich everything is sanitized or in a back alley with a coathanger,
apparently south dakota prefers the coathanger, or falling stomach first off a flight of stairs
goodjob s. dakota, setting a good example for us all

The idea of people breaking a law isnt a good reason to not pass a law.

A fetus is not a part of your body. It is a developing organism depending on your body, just as parasites and bacteria. If it's an organism, that means it's either alive or dead. Obviously it's not bacteria or a parasite, so what is it? Human! We've all had discussions on whether those humans are alive or not, but the point is it's human. I made this next argument before but I'll make it again- if it's in the development stage then it is growing. Can non-living organisms grow (I know our fingernails continue to grow for a short while after we die but that doesn't count cuz they're not organisms)? No! So that means the organism in your body is not only human, but growing and, most importantly, alive. Which means although it is merely a fetus inside you and not born yet, it is, put flatly and honestly, murder to "do as you please."

ahh you must be one of those people who eats nothing but rocks, because al else is living,
i didnt think you were so stop with the self richeous "its living we cant kill it" your responsable for the deaths of many thousand LIVING organisms, what is one more?
im glad your fortunate enough to be middle class,
how about a crackhead mother, the baby will spend its entire life with withdrawl symptoms, the mother is going to be more concerned with feeding her adiction then the baby, it will starve.

its easy to argue from your point of view, but your not the mother who will die if she gives birth, your not the one who has to raise a product of rape, could you raise a baby if its father raped you, i didnt think so
so shut the fuck up with your "god doesnt like killing babies" it disgusts me and now matter how pretty sounding you make your rewsponse sound your stll a stupid middle class fucktard who cant mind his own buisness

Why I am pro-choice:

Because honestly, it isn't my decision to make. I am not going to condemn anyone who has to choose.

1) Raising kids is expensive. Think a moment about how much goes into it, and realize that many of the people involved lack the ability to do so. Oh, and did I mention that the US has 8 million+ uninsured (medically) kids in the US?

2) Most parents seeking an abortion will not want to have a kid in the first place. And it would be much more cruel to leave them with parents who don't want them. Is it really ethical to leave someone in that situation. Some would argue that the parent is skipping his/her responsibility, but would it not be crueller still to leave a kid with parents who want no part of it?

3) Some will bring up adoption as a possible alternative. Not in the long haul, no. There are over 6.5 billion people on this mudball of a planet as of a couple of days ago. Most of the kids won't find adoptive parents. And the odds are really stacked against older kids.

This may seem harsh, abrasive even, but I read a lot of cases in this regard. And most of them fall into one of those three categories.

And Czar Romanov, in those laws, no exception is made for rape or incest. I got news for you. It will be lucky to make it past appellate court. Sorry for hurting your feelings Romanov.

ahh you must be one of those people who eats nothing but rocks, because al else is living,
i didnt think you were so stop with the self richeous "its living we cant kill it" your responsable for the deaths of many thousand LIVING organisms, what is one more?
im glad your fortunate enough to be middle class,
how about a crackhead mother, the baby will spend its entire life with withdrawl symptoms, the mother is going to be more concerned with feeding her adiction then the baby, it will starve.

its easy to argue from your point of view, but your not the mother who will die if she gives birth, your not the one who has to raise a product of rape, could you raise a baby if its father raped you, i didnt think so
so shut the fuck up with your "god doesnt like killing babies" it disgusts me and now matter how pretty sounding you make your rewsponse sound your stll a stupid middle class fucktard who cant mind his own buisness

Theres no reason to insult people, furthermore youre the only one to have mentioned god, his post said nothing about it, however all of your post if off topic. If you fail to prove nothing more than simply because a child is an inconvenice to society it has no rights you have missed the point (that a fetus is both human and alive), and your logic has a fatal error. If we continue with your logic I would be justified in my murder of anyone who stood in the way of my goals in anyway, or who might suffer in thier life. Then I would certainly be justified in murdering you as you have obsyructed my goal of proving that it is illogical, given our nation's set of legal standards to allow abortions.

ahh you must be one of those people who eats nothing but rocks, because al else is living,
i didnt think you were so stop with the self richeous "its living we cant kill it" your responsable for the deaths of many thousand LIVING organisms, what is one more?
im glad your fortunate enough to be middle class,
how about a crackhead mother, the baby will spend its entire life with withdrawl symptoms, the mother is going to be more concerned with feeding her adiction then the baby, it will starve.

its easy to argue from your point of view, but your not the mother who will die if she gives birth, your not the one who has to raise a product of rape, could you raise a baby if its father raped you, i didnt think so
so shut the fuck up with your "god doesnt like killing babies" it disgusts me and now matter how pretty sounding you make your rewsponse sound your stll a stupid middle class fucktard who cant mind his own buisnessLook, I said from the beginning I'm sorry if what I say upsets anyone. I apologize again. No, I don't eat rocks. I have no problem with killing anything not human. I've gone deerhunting twice and I'm only 16. Believe me- I've had cow stomach, chicken heart, the list goes on. I eat anything. But when it comes to murdering humans, that rips me nearly to tears. I'll be quite honest in saying I don't know where I stand when a mother is going to die without an abortion. Or the other examples you gave. It's tough. But believe you me when I say that if the situation is not life-threatening, I don't think there's an excuse for murdering an innocent human. And you heard me on why I think they're humans. If you or someone you know and love is in one of those situations I will pray for them. That'll probably make you mad but it's just a way to show I care. Cuz I do, even if I seem angry as you read this. I really do care, please understand that. I believe in God but I didn't use arguments about Him against you or anyone- I tried to keep my arguments as religiously neutral as possible. Please understand that as well. Again I apologize for upsetting you.

Why I am pro-choice:

Because honestly, it isn't my decision to make. I am not going to condemn anyone who has to choose.

1) Raising kids is expensive. Think a moment about how much goes into it, and realize that many of the people involved lack the ability to do so. Oh, and did I mention that the US has 8 million+ uninsured (medically) kids in the US?

2) Most parents seeking an abortion will not want to have a kid in the first place. And it would be much more cruel to leave them with parents who don't want them. Is it really ethical to leave someone in that situation. Some would argue that the parent is skipping his/her responsibility, but would it not be crueller still to leave a kid with parents who want no part of it?

3) Some will bring up adoption as a possible alternative. Not in the long haul, no. There are over 6.5 billion people on this mudball of a planet as of a couple of days ago. Most of the kids won't find adoptive parents. And the odds are really stacked against older kids.

This may seem harsh, abrasive even, but I read a lot of cases in this regard. And most of them fall into one of those three categories.

And Czar Romanov, in those laws, no exception is made for rape or incest. I got news for you. It will be lucky to make it past appellate court. Sorry for hurting your feelings Romanov.

I dont care if there are no provisions for rape or incest, In my personal opinion, if those women couldnt protect themselves they deserved it. However this is not how the american legal system considers the issue, certainly the child has no responsibility for the crime against the woman, how can he be given a death sentence. Alot of things are crueler than death, however someone experiencing them doesnt necessarily want or deserve to die(I realize that a fetus is far beyond the idea of desires however we can assume, based on the fact that it does it's best to survive that it indeed has this desire however unexpressedly and perhaps in an innate way similiar to that of any animal when it's life is threatened.)

Can you justify to me that a fetus is your property? I would also like to note that the government makes it illegal to do things to your body and property regardless of whether or not you own them. Arson is a felony even if you own the building, usage of certain drugs is also illegal. Nothing in the constitution says "you can do whatever you want with what you own", simply that you can own things. I would like to argue that a fetus is a human being. It has the DNA of a human and is unique to itself(with the exception of twins), it is clearly living by a scientific definition of the word, and clearly not a part of your body since it isnt identical to your DNA.
I never said a fetus was my or anyone elses property. I said that a person's body is their poperty. Two different things Czar. Now to your arguement about drugs I would argue that the governments policy on such is hypocritical and that drugs should be decriminalized. But thats another arguement for another thread. I have a question for you on the twin part. Why is it they are an exception to the rule? Also I do believe there have been references to cancer and other things that have unique DNA in our bodies but are not considered seperate entities or human. And the whole scientific aspect has been argued by other posters who have made points against what you have put forth. I however am not as well versed on the biological side of the arguement. I am more versed with the body is your property arguement and such. Also just because something is alive does not mean we give it rights. We need to prove its a person because quite frankly a pig doesn't have the same right to life as myself or you.


I dont care if there are no provisions for rape or incest, In my personal opinion, if those women couldnt protect themselves they deserved it.
You know few people if any actually use the dirty whore arguement anymore man. I think the whole woman's rights movement kind of made us frown on the whole women are weaker and deserve less rights kind of shit like that.

A fetus is not a part of your body. It is a developing organism depending on your body, just as parasites and bacteria. If it's an organism, that means it's either alive or dead. Obviously it's not bacteria or a parasite, so what is it? Human! We've all had discussions on whether those humans are alive or not, but the point is it's human. I made this next argument before but I'll make it again- if it's in the development stage then it is growing. Can non-living organisms grow (I know our fingernails continue to grow for a short while after we die but that doesn't count cuz they're not organisms)? No! So that means the organism in your body is not only human, but growing and, most importantly, alive. Which means although it is merely a fetus inside you and not born yet, it is, put flatly and honestly, murder to "do as you please."
What is a fetus well its a fetus. Its a descriptive term we use to decribe the developing stages of our offspring. Let me ask you this is an acorn an oak tree or is a catapiller a butterfly? A fetus will develope into a human/person but I would not believe it is one at the stages we've set forth. Now as I addressed to Czar we don't just give things rights because they are alive. Pigs and dogs don't have the same rights as I or you do. You need to prove that the fetus/embryo is a person/human and you've failed to do so. And the whole murder thing is getting old because its not murder if its not illegal. And abortion is not illegal so its not murder.

I don't see a strawman there, my friend... and I really don't see how you think it makes sense.
Because what you think I said I didn't say.

Would it be beyond you to actually read what I write?


Now, THIS is a strawman.
No, it is not.


I 'do not accept morality at all', is what you get from my argument?
It's the idea behind it when you say that you do not accept individual rights.


I guess that would depend what you mean... if you mean an OBJECTIVE morality, then you would be right... but, if you mean 'morality, at all', then you would be pretty off-base.
Then justify how you believe that there can be morality without individual rights.


But, then... I'm not sure where you got "I don't believe it, therefore it's wrong" from, either.
Because that's all you're saying. You don't believe that there are individual rights, therefore I'm wrong. That's the entire backstory of each of your posts to me.



I mentioned 'rights' as being logically unsupportable. Of these, the 'most' unsupportable is the idea of a 'fundamental human right'.
Mayhaps you should read the works of the authors I mentioned.


"Yes they are" is not an argument that supports human rights.
When you provide nothing for me to go on.....

I'll take your continued "I don't believe it, therefore you're wrong" as admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Big Assertion. (With Capitals, no less).
No, it's not.

That's the thing about debate: you actually have to show that the rights are taken away. Odd that no one has been able to, if, as has been said, they can be.

GAH!!! I give up. Someone here doesn't know a damn thing about rights and privaleges
That would be you.

That would be you.

Actually it would be you.

Can you justify to me that a fetus is your property?
1. The woman has the right of self-ownership.
2. The woman therefore owns all the parts of her body.
3. The womb is part of the woman's body.
4. Therefore, the woman owns her womb.
5. Necessarily, the woman also owns the contents of the parts of her body that are enclosed(e.g. the blood in her heart)
6. The fetus is the content of her womb when she is pregnant.
7. Therefore, the woman owns the fetus.

In my personal opinion, if those women couldnt protect themselves they deserved it.

i am disgusted, how about my friend holds a gun to your head while i rip a hole in your ass with my cock, seen pulp fiction? except this time it will go on till i feel like im done, then i take the gun and my friend finishes you off. (im assuming your a guy, if your a girl i hope i get you pregnant)
after all its your fault you cant defend yourself

Actually it would be you.
No, I know the difference between permissions (something that can be revoked/removed/taken away) and rights (something which can be violated/infringed upon).

You, OTOH, do not. I chalk that up to a lack of education in the philosophy of ethics and morals on your part.

I never said a fetus was my or anyone elses property. I said that a person's body is their poperty. Two different things Czar. Now to your arguement about drugs I would argue that the governments policy on such is hypocritical and that drugs should be decriminalized. But thats another arguement for another thread. I have a question for you on the twin part. Why is it they are an exception to the rule? Also I do believe there have been references to cancer and other things that have unique DNA in our bodies but are not considered seperate entities or human. And the whole scientific aspect has been argued by other posters who have made points against what you have put forth. I however am not as well versed on the biological side of the arguement. I am more versed with the body is your property arguement and such. Also just because something is alive does not mean we give it rights. We need to prove its a person because quite frankly a pig doesn't have the same right to life as myself or you.

I cant help but feel that a fetus is human(I only noted twins because they happen to have identical dna structures, and do not mean to say they are non-human). Cancer does have different DNA, however it can never exist outside of it's host and thereby certainly is not human. However if you agree that a fetus isnt your body or property how can you say that a mother should have domain over it?

You know few people if any actually use the dirty whore arguement anymore man. I think the whole woman's rights movement kind of made us frown on the whole women are weaker and deserve less rights kind of shit like that.

Once again youre puting words into people's mouths read what you quoted I never said anything about women being weak or whores or anything else of that nature, I simply wanted to express my opinion that if people are weak that they deserve to be defeated by those that are strong- if the result of that is rape then so be it. I also didnt say anything about right concerning women and was only stating my opinion on that. I would however like to stick to laws when dicussing this and not opinions.

What is a fetus well its a fetus. Its a descriptive term we use to decribe the developing stages of our offspring. Let me ask you this is an acorn an oak tree or is a catapiller a butterfly? A fetus will develope into a human/person but I would not believe it is one at the stages we've set forth. Now as I addressed to Czar we don't just give things rights because they are alive. Pigs and dogs don't have the same rights as I or you do. You need to prove that the fetus/embryo is a person/human and you've failed to do so. And the whole murder thing is getting old because its not murder if its not illegal. And abortion is not illegal so its not murder.

Just because its not illegal doesnt mean its not murder, I was using murder in a non-legal sense there to mean "killing of a living organism".

What is a fetus well its a fetus. Its a descriptive term we use to decribe the developing stages of our offspring. Let me ask you this is an acorn an oak tree or is a catapiller a butterfly? A fetus will develope into a human/person but I would not believe it is one at the stages we've set forth. Now as I addressed to Czar we don't just give things rights because they are alive. Pigs and dogs don't have the same rights as I or you do. You need to prove that the fetus/embryo is a person/human and you've failed to do so. And the whole murder thing is getting old because its not murder if its not illegal. And abortion is not illegal so its not murder.An acorn is the means of reproduction, so you're right it's not an oak tree. If it's placed in ideal conditions it will grow into to roots and stuff, and that's when it becomes the start of an oak tree, much like human reproductive cells in comparison, which of course aren't human. If they're placed in "ideal" conditions, they will fuse and become the start of a human. Right there it becomes a human. And obviously, caterpillars aren't butterflies. That goes without saying. And so that brings me to the argument I gave before, that fetuses are humans.
As for whether abortion is murder, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. You can be put on death row in Saudi Arabia, for example, for holding private church services in your home. No joke. So legally speaking, at this time, abortion is perfectly fine. But it is is wrong, and that is why people like those in South Dakota are pushing to make it illegal. Again I applaud them.

I dont care if there are no provisions for rape or incest, In my personal opinion, if those women couldnt protect themselves they deserved it. However this is not how the american legal system considers the issue, certainly the child has no responsibility for the crime against the woman, how can he be given a death sentence. Alot of things are crueler than death, however someone experiencing them doesnt necessarily want or deserve to die(I realize that a fetus is far beyond the idea of desires however we can assume, based on the fact that it does it's best to survive that it indeed has this desire however unexpressedly and perhaps in an innate way similiar to that of any animal when it's life is threatened.)

Now see, that ticks me off. Blaming the victim? Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. I KNOW a rape victim. I know that a rapist will not allow a victim to be in any position to defend themselves. It stands to very good reason that in the event of a pregnancy by rape or incest, the woman should be given the option to abort. To say that attitude of yours doesn't impress me exercises the most advanced form of understatement.

1. The woman has the right of self-ownership.
2. The woman therefore owns all the parts of her body.
3. The womb is part of the woman's body.
4. Therefore, the woman owns her womb.
5. Necessarily, the woman also owns the contents of the parts of her body that are enclosed(e.g. the blood in her heart)
6. The fetus is the content of her womb when she is pregnant.
7. Therefore, the woman owns the fetus.

I dont understand the owning all contents within her body part, blood is part of your body already, not a seperate piece completely disjoint, as a fetus is. I also didnt know that people had a right of self ownership, and even if they do nothing says we should/have to allow people to do whatever they want to themselves.

i am disgusted, how about my friend holds a gun to your head while i rip a hole in your ass with my cock, seen pulp fiction? except this time it will go on till i feel like im done, then i take the gun and my friend finishes you off. (im assuming your a guy, if your a girl i hope i get you pregnant)
after all its your fault you cant defend yourself

If you gain enough power to do that to me I hope that you do it and then kill me to prevent me from reproducing later on (I am a male).

Now see, that ticks me off. Blaming the victim? Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. I KNOW a rape victim. I know that a rapist will not allow a victim to be in any position to defend themselves. It stands to very good reason that in the event of a pregnancy by rape or incest, the woman should be given the option to abort. To say that attitude of yours doesn't impress me exercises the most advanced form of understatement.

instead of attacking people from now on i will agree with those who put forth a good argument, at risk of being called gay, queer, pansy... etc

good job stormfallen

An acorn is the means of reproduction, so you're right it's not an oak tree. If it's placed in ideal conditions it will grow into to roots and stuff, and that's when it becomes the start of an oak tree, much like human reproductive cells in comparison, which of course aren't human. If they're placed in "ideal" conditions, they will fuse and become the start of a human. Right there it becomes a human. And obviously, caterpillars aren't butterflies. That goes without saying. And so that brings me to the argument I gave before, that fetuses are humans.
How do you prove that New Rhodichia? Lets say that I don't believe that human reproductive cells when placed in the "ideal conditions" and fuse is not a human. Its a clump of cells, a embryo/zygot/fetus, and I say that when the child is born thats when its human. How do you counter that arguement?

As for whether abortion is murder, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. You can be put on death row in Saudi Arabia, for example, for holding private church services in your home. No joke. So legally speaking, at this time, abortion is perfectly fine. But it is is wrong, and that is why people like those in South Dakota are pushing to make it illegal. Again I applaud them.
Way to skirt around that arguement. First we go to abortion is murder and when thats proved wrong you go to abortion is wrong. Quite frankly I don't think its wrong and I think that a woman has every right to choose what to do with her body. The procedures even save the lives of mothers who would die during labor. I have no problem with it and I do not applaud SD's attempt to take away the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

Now see, that ticks me off. Blaming the victim? Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. I KNOW a rape victim. I know that a rapist will not allow a victim to be in any position to defend themselves. It stands to very good reason that in the event of a pregnancy by rape or incest, the woman should be given the option to abort. To say that attitude of yours doesn't impress me exercises the most advanced form of understatement.

I dont give a flying farffennuggen if my attitude doesnt impress you I really dont, but youre way off topic. If you can think of a good reason to kill a living human then post it if not pm me if you have a problem with my ideals.

How do you prove that New Rhodichia? Lets say that I don't believe that human reproductive cells when placed in the "ideal conditions" and fuse is not a human. Its a clump of cells, a embryo/zygot/fetus, and I say that when the child is born thats when its human. How do you counter that arguement?


Way to skirt around that arguement. First we go to abortion is murder and when thats proved wrong you go to abortion is wrong. Quite frankly I don't think its wrong and I think that a woman has every right to choose what to do with her body. The procedures even save the lives of mothers who would die during labor. I have no problem with it and I do not applaud SD's attempt to take away the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

Please avoid a right vs wrong argument. I think everyone can agree that such things will take us nowhere and that right and wrong is subjective(at least for argumentative purposes). As to your belief that birth makes something human, I have to disagree with you. You cannot base your idea of human life on attributes that vary(intelligence, physical form etc.), rather we can certainly agree that any living thing formed by the fusion of a human sperm and egg is a human. Cetainly we are all just a clump of cells, and if we define humanity by subjective attributes, then we leave the door open to execution of retards, cripples, humans with deformities etc. It seems to me that if your logic is extended and the outcome is something completely unacceptable, then you must have failed to provide an accurate initial assumption.

I cant help but feel that a fetus is human(I only noted twins because they happen to have identical dna structures, and do not mean to say they are non-human). Cancer does have different DNA, however it can never exist outside of it's host and thereby certainly is not human. However if you agree that a fetus isnt your body or property how can you say that a mother should have domain over it?
1. Feeling that a fetus is human is not enough to prove that it is.
2. Well its not so much that it would say that they are non human rather it would simply mean that twins are the same person. I am rather interested in why a distinction is made for twins in this case though.
3. A fetus can not certainly survive on its own outside a human without the help of medical technology so by your own standard you would say its not human.
4. Because a womans body is her property and if a fetus is not human she can certainly choose wheter or not she wants it to be born or wheter she would like to undergo an abortion.



Once again youre puting words into people's mouths read what you quoted I never said anything about women being weak or whores or anything else of that nature, I simply wanted to express my opinion that if people are weak that they deserve to be defeated by those that are strong- if the result of that is rape then so be it. I also didnt say anything about right concerning women and was only stating my opinion on that. I would however like to stick to laws when dicussing this and not opinions.
And the name of the arguement where the weak woman is defeated and can't have any alternative is called so apropriately the filthy whore arguement. I personally find it appauling with what your saying because if that was true the whole American legal system would be upturned because if you got robbed then you were too weak and you deserved to be robbed or if you got murdered then you were too weak and deserved to be murdered. I think its incredibly calous and backwards to think that.



Just because its not illegal doesnt mean its not murder, I was using murder in a non-legal sense there to mean "killing of a living organism".
Well then by that train of thought you've just commited murder by typing on your keyboard when you crushed all those poor defenseless bacteria. Or when you cut yourself shaving you've just committed murder by destroying all of those living cells. To throw out murder in the sense you mean cheapens the word so that when a person masturbates they've just commited genocide.

I dont give a flying farffennuggen if my attitude doesnt impress you I really dont, but youre way off topic. If you can think of a good reason to kill a living human then post it if not pm me if you have a problem with my ideals.

You got a few problems there:

1) You opened the door. Ergo, I just walked in. That and I stated very clearly that in a case of rape or incest, a woman should have the right to choose.

2) Sorry, but I already put in my stance. Tell you what, let;s make this interesting. Let's play hardball, you and I.

The scenario below is one I use in regards to parental notification, but also applies to the topic at hand:

A 14-year-old girl walks in to get an abortion. The doctor sees the girl and asks about the father of the baby. Here is where it gets complicated: The father of her baby is HER father as well.

The disturbing part: This happens more frequently than a lot of people are comfortable with. 75% of sex abuse cases involves a close relative or friend of the family. In second: religious figures. The more conservative the religious group, the more frequently it happens within that group.

Should a girl in this situation be required to keep the child? I think not.

Should a parent who does not wish to raise a child be forced to? No, as it would only add to the problems of all involved. Adoption? Haha..no. Most kids who become wards of the state end up being raised by it.

Class dismissed.

Please avoid a right vs wrong argument. I think everyone can agree that such things will take us nowhere and that right and wrong is subjective(at least for argumentative purposes). As to your belief that birth makes something human, I have to disagree with you. You cannot base your idea of human life on attributes that vary(intelligence, physical form etc.), rather we can certainly agree that any living thing formed by the fusion of a human sperm and egg is a human. Cetainly we are all just a clump of cells, and if we define humanity by subjective attributes, then we leave the door open to execution of retards, cripples, humans with deformities etc. It seems to me that if your logic is extended and the outcome is something completely unacceptable, then you must have failed to provide an accurate initial assumption.

1. I didn't open the door for the right and wrong issue. It was brought up after I pointed out that abortion does not meet the qualifications of the term murder.
2. No we can't agree on that because that is the crux of part of the whole arguement man. A fetus is not human its a developmental stage that leads up to one.
3. How does my belief that an embryo/fetus/zygot leave the door open for the execution of mentally disabled, physically handicaped, and people with physical deformations?

Please avoid a right vs wrong argument. I think everyone can agree that such things will take us nowhere and that right and wrong is subjective(at least for argumentative purposes). As to your belief that birth makes something human, I have to disagree with you. You cannot base your idea of human life on attributes that vary(intelligence, physical form etc.), rather we can certainly agree that any living thing formed by the fusion of a human sperm and egg is a human. Cetainly we are all just a clump of cells, and if we define humanity by subjective attributes, then we leave the door open to execution of retards, cripples, humans with deformities etc. It seems to me that if your logic is extended and the outcome is something completely unacceptable, then you must have failed to provide an accurate initial assumption.
This is what we would call a slippery slope fallacy. You take abortion and make redicilous assumptions that it would lead to executing people deviating slightly from the norm.

1. Feeling that a fetus is human is not enough to prove that it is.
2. Well its not so much that it would say that they are non human rather it would simply mean that twins are the same person. I am rather interested in why a distinction is made for twins in this case though.
3. A fetus can not certainly survive on its own outside a human without the help of medical technology so by your own standard you would say its not human.
4. Because a womans body is her property and if a fetus is not human she can certainly choose wheter or not she wants it to be born or wheter she would like to undergo an abortion.

"without the help of medical technology" are you to argue that anyone unfit for living here deserves to die. Im sure if I put you completely out of you element without the help of technology you would die. I never said I consider something incapable of survival without the help of technology to be non-human. If anything its almost the definition of being human. As to twins, I was simply saying that they are one of the few humans to have identical DNA to each other, nothing more. I would also like to see what FEDERAL LAW says someone can do whatever they want to thier body or anything inside it.


And the name of the arguement where the weak woman is defeated and can't have any alternative is called so apropriately the filthy whore arguement. I personally find it appauling with what your saying because if that was true the whole American legal system would be upturned because if you got robbed then you were too weak and you deserved to be robbed or if you got murdered then you were too weak and deserved to be murdered. I think its incredibly calous and backwards to think that.

I dont believe women are inherently weak and I never said that, I only stated that in the caes some one is too weak to defend themselves, they deserve what they get, this includes me and everyone else. My opinions have little to do with the topic. (I do believe the american legal system should be "upturned", but this is not the issue)


Well then by that train of thought you've just commited murder by typing on your keyboard when you crushed all those poor defenseless bacteria. Or when you cut yourself shaving you've just committed murder by destroying all of those living cells. To throw out murder in the sense you mean cheapens the word so that when a person masturbates they've just commited genocide.

Yes, I have commited murder everytime I breath or speak or press on a keyboard and I dont care. I like the idea of taking something's life and utterly defeating it in a show of superiority. And when bacteria infest my body and kill me I'll be glad to have been killed by something greater than myself. Any comments on my personal beliefs on right and wrong, please forward to me via telegram. The issue here is lawfulness of a law banning abortions.

If you cant see the different between enforcing laws that allow us to live in a civil society and opposing laws that enforce certain(mostly religious views) on an entire population that largely disargees, than you might not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Oh yeah, we all know foster and adoption agencies are great and dont screw up kids for life:rolleyes: Id rather never be born than be born to a very poor family or with a drug addiction. Id also prefer death to being pass around foster homes like peace pipe.

Amen to that.

How do you prove that New Rhodichia? Lets say that I don't believe that human reproductive cells when placed in the "ideal conditions" and fuse is not a human. Its a clump of cells, a embryo/zygot/fetus, and I say that when the child is born thats when its human. How do you counter that arguement?Well, I guess you came in too late to see this but earlier I asked what are we if not a clump of cells ourselves? We're hundreds of times more complex than fetuses but we're clumps of cells all the same. What difference does it make if the umbilical cord is cut, signifying the start of their life outside the womb? All that's happening is that their life inside the womb is ending. But their life started before when those 2 cells joined together. I have a feeling we're not going to agree on this anytime soon but there's my statement on that.
Way to skirt around that arguement. First we go to abortion is murder and when thats proved wrong you go to abortion is wrong. Quite frankly I don't think its wrong and I think that a woman has every right to choose what to do with her body. The procedures even save the lives of mothers who would die during labor. I have no problem with it and I do not applaud SD's attempt to take away the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.I wasn't skirtin' anything. You said that because abortion isn't illegal it's not murder. I didn't change the subject or anything- I responded directly to that. And I don't think anyone was able to prove abortion isn't murder anymore than I have convinced you about it, so I wasn't going from one failed argument to the next. I was doing that minus the word "failed." I agree with you on the choices of the body to a certain extent, but as I said before the fetus is not part of the body.

This is what we would call a slippery slope fallacy. You take abortion and make redicilous assumptions that it would lead to executing people deviating slightly from the norm.

A fetus is a human deviating slightly from the norm, and not even permanently, in nine months(or less) its compltely functional, with the exception of being able to father/mother children.

I dont give a flying farffennuggen if my attitude doesnt impress you I really dont, but youre way off topic. If you can think of a good reason to kill a living human then post it if not pm me if you have a problem with my ideals.

They are actively trying to kill you.

Well, I guess you came in too late to see this but earlier I asked what are we if not a clump of cells ourselves? We're hundreds of times more complex than fetuses but we're clumps of cells all the same. What difference does it make if the umbilical cord is cut, signifying the start of their life outside the womb? All that's happening is that their life inside the womb is ending. But their life started before when those 2 cells joined together. I have a feeling we're not going to agree on this anytime soon but there's my statement on that.
A fetus/embryo lacks all the organs, nervous system, and many more biological functions that a human has up until a certain point in development. Take a fetus/embryo/zygot and put it next to a human and you can tell that they aren't the same thing.


I wasn't skirtin' anything. You said that because abortion isn't illegal it's not murder. I didn't change the subject or anything- I responded directly to that. And I don't think anyone was able to prove abortion isn't murder anymore than I have convinced you about it, so I wasn't going from one failed argument to the next. I was doing that minus the word "failed." I agree with you on the choices of the body to a certain extent, but as I said before the fetus is not part of the body.

As for whether abortion is murder, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. You can be put on death row in Saudi Arabia, for example, for holding private church services in your home. No joke. So legally speaking, at this time, abortion is perfectly fine. But it is is wrong, and that is why people like those in South Dakota are pushing to make it illegal. Again I applaud them.

We went from abortion is murder as a topic to just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. And then you throw in the red herring of saudi arabia which has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion being murder.

They are actively trying to kill you.

Thats the only one I can think of that the law upholds, however certainly a fetus is beyond that capacity. I also would like to point out to people that its just silly to think life starts after birth. If a plastic army man pops out of a woman's vagina it doesnt make it a baby.

A fetus/embryo lacks all the organs, nervous system, and many more biological functions that a human has up until a certain point in development. Take a fetus/embryo/zygot and put it next to a human and you can tell that they aren't the same thing.

We went from abortion is murder as a topic to just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. And then you throw in the red herring of saudi arabia which has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion being murder.

Youre right, I define human as myself, suring when we compare me and you we arnt the same, therefore you arnt human. This is my point, simply that the best description of a human is an organism having the ability(at some point in time) to produce another human being. A child's reproductive system isnt developed but that doesnt make him non-human. I can't help but feel you continue to choose irrelevent differences and suppose that that is the difference between humans and other living things.

I dont give a flying farffennuggen if my attitude doesnt impress you I really dont, but youre way off topic. If you can think of a good reason to kill a living human then post it if not pm me if you have a problem with my ideals.

How about euthinasia when a terminally ill person doesn't want to deal with the pain or if a person who's in a coma has specified that they don't want to be kept alive?

A fetus/embryo lacks all the organs, nervous system, and many more biological functions that a human has up until a certain point in development. Take a fetus/embryo/zygot and put it next to a human and you can tell that they aren't the same thing.
What about that caterpillar/butterfly argument somene gave me? Or even better the acorn example? You wouldn't know by its looks that a little nut could fall on the ground and eventually become a tree, but it does! This is a bit of a cross-example since an acorn isn't a tree as a fetus is a human, but my point is it has the potential to develop into something thousands of times as big as itself, even though it looks nothing like it. Same with fetuses. Don't judge a book by its cover.
We went from abortion is murder as a topic to just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. And then you throw in the red herring of saudi arabia which has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion being murder.What the heck is wrong with giving an example of my statement, as random as it may seem to some? And as I said before, I wasn't skirtin' anything. I was going from one argument (which didn't fail) to the next. Not to mention (again) I was responding to what you said. If you would like to stay on one or the other in particular I'm fine with that. You decide. I've given arguments for both.

How about euthinasia when a terminally ill person doesn't want to deal with the pain or if a person who's in a coma has specified that they don't want to be kept alive?

I would say let them die(I do believe the sick person should have the balls to do it themselves, but its ok if they get some1 to help with it), however its the govt's position that these things are wrong, not mine. They have thusly outlawed them. Please pm me if you want to discuss my morals, if you can tie this into the current argument, good otherwise I'll stop answering these types of questions.

Youre right, I define human as myself, suring when we compare me and you we arnt the same, therefore you arnt human. This is my point, simply that the best description of a human is an organism having the ability(at some point in time) to produce another human being. A child's reproductive system isnt developed but that doesnt make him non-human. I can't help but feel you continue to choose irrelevent differences and suppose that that is the difference between humans and other living things.
1. You've completely twisted what I was saying without taking any of the post that I responded to into account.

Well, I guess you came in too late to see this but earlier I asked what are we if not a clump of cells ourselves? We're hundreds of times more complex than fetuses but we're clumps of cells all the same.
Rhodichia was pointing out that human beings are a lump of cells when I said that a fetus was a lump of cells and that we are clumps of cells ourselves. My response is to simply say because something is made of a lump of cells does not make it human. If your not going to take into account the post I'm refering to when you respond to my answer to someone else your better off not making a reply.

2. And I disagree that the best definition for a human is one who can make reproduce and make another human. And I love how your own criteria is not met by a fetus and yet you out of hand reject his as a reason for it not being human without providing proof to the contrary.

1. You've completely twisted what I was saying without taking any of the post that I responded to into account.


Rhodichia was pointing out that human beings are a lump of cells when I said that a fetus was a lump of cells and that we are clumps of cells ourselves. My response is to simply say because something is made of a lump of cells does not make it human. If your not going to take into account the post I'm refering to when you respond to my answer to someone else your better off not making a reply.

2. And I disagree that the best definition for a human is one who can make reproduce and make another human. And I love how your own criteria is not met by a fetus and yet you out of hand reject his as a reason for it not being human without providing proof to the contrary.

I was not saying that something that can reproduce to make a human is human, rather something that can at some point in it's life time reproduce to make a human is in-fact a human. yes, I did twist what you were saying, however I was only following the guidelines of your own argument and coming to a seperate and equally valid conclusion, given the constraints you applied. If the outcome is outrageous its only because the original statement is imperfect. I was only trying to point out that you need a definition of "human" that acceptably describes a human. My point was that physical differences dont dictate what is and isnt human.

Rhodichia was pointing out that human beings are a lump of cells when I said that a fetus was a lump of cells and that we are clumps of cells ourselves. My response is to simply say because something is made of a lump of cells does not make it human. If your not going to take into account the post I'm refering to when you respond to my answer to someone else your better off not making a reply.Huh? I never said any random clump of cells is a human. What I said was that fetuses, which happen to be a clump of cells just as we are, are humans just as we are.
And I disagree that the best definition for a human is one who can make reproduce and make another human. And I love how your own criteria is not met by a fetus and yet you out of hand reject his as a reason for it not being human without providing proof to the contrary.No one put that as a definition, or if they did and I missed it, I don't agree with them. Don't put words in my mouth. Of course fetuses can't reproduce! And out of hand? Not providing evidence to the contrary? What have I been doing these last few hours? Fetuses can't do what we can do. Duh. But that doesn't make them any less human than a broken cd player is a cd player.

I'll try to be back tomorrow but I'm goin to bed. G'night all

I was not saying that something that can reproduce to make a human is human, rather something that can at some point in it's life time reproduce to make a human is in-fact a human. yes, I did twist what you were saying, however I was only following the guidelines of your own argument and coming to a seperate and equally valid conclusion, given the constraints you applied. If the outcome is outrageous its only because the original statement is imperfect. I was only trying to point out that you need a definition of "human" that acceptably describes a human. My point was that physical differences dont dictate what is and isnt human.

1. So if my cells can reproduce through cellular division are they human?
2. No the outcome is not outrages if you look at the post I'm replying to. You twisted my words to fit your conclusion without even taking into consideration what I was replying to. I wasn't even talking to you in that discussion you just came in and quoted what I said completely out of context.

Huh? I never said any random clump of cells is a human. What I said was that fetuses, which happen to be a clump of cells just as we are, are humans just as we are.
And I don't agree because a fetus up until a certain point does not have all of the bodily systems we have, does not feel pain, and is not conscious.

No one put that as a definition, or if they did and I missed it, I don't agree with them. Don't put words in my mouth. Of course fetuses can't reproduce! And out of hand? Not providing evidence to the contrary? What have I been doing these last few hours? Fetuses can't do what we can do. Duh. But that doesn't make them any less human than a broken cd player is a cd player.

That was in response to Czar who took it upon himself to answer a post that was directed to you. Sorry if its causing some confusion here.

I'll try to be back tomorrow but I'm goin to bed. G'night all
Goodnight. I'm off to sleep too now so I'll check back in the thread tomorrow.

You got a few problems there:

1) You opened the door. Ergo, I just walked in. That and I stated very clearly that in a case of rape or incest, a woman should have the right to choose.

2) Sorry, but I already put in my stance. Tell you what, let;s make this interesting. Let's play hardball, you and I.

The scenario below is one I use in regards to parental notification, but also applies to the topic at hand:

A 14-year-old girl walks in to get an abortion. The doctor sees the girl and asks about the father of the baby. Here is where it gets complicated: The father of her baby is HER father as well.

The disturbing part: This happens more frequently than a lot of people are comfortable with. 75% of sex abuse cases involves a close relative or friend of the family. In second: religious figures. The more conservative the religious group, the more frequently it happens within that group.

Should a girl in this situation be required to keep the child? I think not.

Should a parent who does not wish to raise a child be forced to? No, as it would only add to the problems of all involved. Adoption? Haha..no. Most kids who become wards of the state end up being raised by it.

Class dismissed.

Im absolutely fine with people having to raise children they dont want. I also dont find anything wrong with incest, if theyre too deformed to survive then nature will sort it out. I also dont care if a child has to be raised by the state, certainly if the child feels its being alive is worse than death it will kill itself(something I dont care about, kill yourself if you want to). I dont find your "complication" very complex. Its still quite obviously an issue of life and death for a human being.

Im absolutely fine with people having to raise children they dont want. I also dont find anything wrong with incest, if theyre too deformed to survive then nature will sort it out. I also dont care if a child has to be raised by the state, certainly if the child feels its being alive is worse than death it will kill itself(something I dont care about, kill yourself if you want to). I dont find your "complication" very complex. Its still quite obviously an issue of life and death for a human being.

So basicly you do not give a [selfcensored] about the child - you just care about upholding the "life is sacred" dogma ?

So basicly you do not give a [selfcensored] about the child - you just care about upholding the "life is sacred" dogma ?

if you read what you quoted you will note I make no indication that I believe life is sacred, I even supported people who want to commit SUICIDE. If anything you appear to care less about the child and more about it being a discomfort to his parents. I at least give the child the decision to live or not. you however prempt any opinion the child might have and instead assume that he would rather be dead than ever be born.

EDIT: I dont think life is sacred at all, Im simply trying to argue from a purely law-based position. If you read my previous posts in this thread you will see I dont believe what you assert here(I personally support the murder of all those who are too weak to survive on thier own, of whom I most certainly fall within). I hope people stop reading thier prejudices into what I write. I have never professed any faith herein and have made plenty of indictations to the fact I dont believe in a religion that holds life sacred.

1. So if my cells can reproduce through cellular division are they human?
2. No the outcome is not outrages if you look at the post I'm replying to. You twisted my words to fit your conclusion without even taking into consideration what I was replying to. I wasn't even talking to you in that discussion you just came in and quoted what I said completely out of context.

I am sorry if Im taking you out of context, I hadnt realized, if my assumption that you were saying because an embryo doesnt have all the functions of a fully grown human(or even newly born) it is not human was wrong I truly am sorry. However...

Does it matter that you werent talking to me, here I thought it was a forum, not a personal message from you to him. Your idea was (as far as I could tell) that if someone doesnt physically resemble what you consider to be human, then they are not, I was only trying to point out that its a very inaccurate description of human vs. non-human, and the problems that arise from having such a description. As for your cells, they cant produce whole new humans on thier own, if you read closely I said that a human is an organism that can produce a human AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. Your cells are not humans since they cannot produce a human by cellular division(thier only method of reproduction). this would make it seem that by my definition an egg or sperm cell is human. I would point out that a sperm or egg cell is not a seperate organism, rather small pieces of a human that when two merge form a human, furthermore even if you think they are thier own organisms, they certainly dont reproduce themselves. Sperm and egg cells are not organisms, however, zygotes are.

If I am wrong on what you were saying please, give me your definition of what a human is, such that an embryo is not it. Your overall argument here is that since they're not humans they dont have a right to live, correct?