Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[shmogie]

NOTE: SECOND REQUEST FOR A RESPONSE:

I have provided a legal definition of 'person' via Black's Laws, which you rejected. But you have yet to provide one which is acceptable to you.

'Human' is a status? I thought it was a species.

An unborn fetus cannot speak, think, or act upon its own. It cannot navigate in the physical world; it is totally dependent upon it's mother for its life. It knows nothing of interpersonal relations with any other, other than its mother, which it is unaware of as another person. In fact, even after birth, the infant does not develop a sense of self until around 14 months. It's identity is given to it via social indoctrination and direct experience with the world it interacts with. It is not born with an identity, let alone having one as an unborn fetus. It has no sense of 'I'-ness. Where is 'person', either in the legal or non-legal sense?

As I pointed out, none of the Supreme Court judges allowed the term 'person' to be applied to the unborn fetus, which goes beyond abortion as a limiting factor.

Irrelevant. Do unborn babies have a functioning brain, yes. Do they feel pain, at a certain point, yes. In the case of twins do they interact

NOTE: SECOND REQUEST FOR A RESPONSE:

I have provided a legal definition of 'person' via Black's Laws, which you rejected. But you have yet to provide one which is acceptable to you.

'Human' is a status? I thought it was a species.

An unborn fetus cannot speak, think, or act upon its own. It cannot navigate in the physical world; it is totally dependent upon it's mother for its life. It knows nothing of interpersonal relations with any other, other than its mother, which it is unaware of as another person. In fact, even after birth, the infant does not develop a sense of self until around 14 months. It's identity is given to it via social indoctrination and direct experience with the world it interacts with. It is not born with an identity, let alone having one as an unborn fetus. It has no sense of 'I'-ness. Where is 'person', either in the legal or non-legal sense?

As I pointed out, none of the Supreme Court judges allowed the term 'person' to be applied to the unborn fetus, which goes beyond abortion as a limiting factor.

If, as you believe, the Warren court established the non personhood of an unborn child as settled law across the nation and in all circumstances, then the nation has been in a serious Constitutional crisis for decades.This edict from the warren court has been ignored for decades by Congress, and state and federal court, but nobody cares, including the Supreme court.

37 states enforce laws that state that the murder of a pregnant mother, results in the charge of two counts of murder, the unborn baby cannot be a murder victim if it is not a person, and the majority of these categorically describe the unborn child as a person.

In 21 states, if the mother if harmed, and the unborn child is not killed, but is harmed, the assailant can be charged with two counts of assault, one against the mother, the other against the unborn child. All the assault laws of all 50 declare the obvious, one cannot commit assault against anything, only against any person. The unborn baby is legally established as a person.

All 50 states permit the use of force, including deadly force, in the defense of ones self, or others. The use of force, to protect ones unborn child was established in 2002 it was established in a particular case that the application of deadly force was used by a woman pregnant with quadruplets The MI appeals court in the case said the woman had the right to use deadly force " to protect the lives of her unborn children" State v Kurr. A child is a person. This ruling has not been overturned

The federal born alive protection act defines categorically that all born baby's are person, including those as the result of a botched abortion, clearly nullifying Black definition of person. 21 states have the same definition in their born alive protection act,.

Civil law recognizes the personhood of the unborn child in 39 states Where wrongful death suits can be brought in the case of a caused death of an unborn child. These are suits regarding the death of a person, not a thing.

Common law, and US law has considered the unborn child a person consistently till 1973, and since, in all circumstances, but abortion.

So there is the dirty big secret that is isn't so secret, an unborn child is always a person in all circumstances except when it is killed in an abortion. Then all previous law and current definitions in law are abandoned in the case of that one and only act.

Further, the law issue that enables abortionists and their clients is described as the right to privacy found in the 5th and 14th amendments. If you read them you will find little about privacy. As Justice Rehnquist stated, the only Constitutional right to privacy in the Constitution is the protection from unreasonable searches and seizure.

The warren court is the total outlier and anomaly at law in the definition of the personhood of the unborn. The unborn have ALWAYS been persons, and are now persons in all aspects of law, except in the case of a pregnant woman and her doctor killing her unborn child. Even then this, grotesque denial of personhood to all other unborn baby's in all other matters of law wasn't the factor in allowing abortion PRIVACY was, not found in either the 5th or 14th amendment as the Warren court said it was.

Because Roe v Wade was a decision based upon warped, inconsistent and nonexistent law, that flew in the face of everything legal, and limited itself to abortion solely, IT WILL BE OVERTURNED

 

[Shad]

Did a Golden Age follow the Qin Dynasty?

More like a Silver Age in comparison to the Tang and Ming along with the previous Qin and Warring States period (Bronze Age).

 

[godnotgod]

Irrelevant. Do unborn babies have a functioning brain, yes. Do they feel pain, at a certain point, yes. In the case of twins do they interact

If, as you believe, the Warren court established the non personhood of an unborn child as settled law across the nation and in all circumstances, then the nation has been in a serious Constitutional crisis for decades.This edict from the warren court has been ignored for decades by Congress, and state and federal court, but nobody cares, including the Supreme court.

37 states enforce laws that state that the murder of a pregnant mother, results in the charge of two counts of murder, the unborn baby cannot be a murder victim if it is not a person, and the majority of these categorically describe the unborn child as a person.

In 21 states, if the mother if harmed, and the unborn child is not killed, but is harmed, the assailant can be charged with two counts of assault, one against the mother, the other against the unborn child. All the assault laws of all 50 declare the obvious, one cannot commit assault against anything, only against any person. The unborn baby is legally established as a person.

All 50 states permit the use of force, including deadly force, in the defense of ones self, or others. The use of force, to protect ones unborn child was established in 2002 it was established in a particular case that the application of deadly force was used by a woman pregnant with quadruplets The MI appeals court in the case said the woman had the right to use deadly force " to protect the lives of her unborn children" State v Kurr. A child is a person. This ruling has not been overturned

The federal born alive protection act defines categorically that all born baby's are person, including those as the result of a botched abortion, clearly nullifying Black definition of person. 21 states have the same definition in their born alive protection act,.

Civil law recognizes the personhood of the unborn child in 39 states Where wrongful death suits can be brought in the case of a caused death of an unborn child. These are suits regarding the death of a person, not a thing.

Common law, and US law has considered the unborn child a person consistently till 1973, and since, in all circumstances, but abortion.

So there is the dirty big secret that is isn't so secret, an unborn child is always a person in all circumstances except when it is killed in an abortion. Then all previous law and current definitions in law are abandoned in the case of that one and only act.

Further, the law issue that enables abortionists and their clients is described as the right to privacy found in the 5th and 14th amendments. If you read them you will find little about privacy. As Justice Rehnquist stated, the only Constitutional right to privacy in the Constitution is the protection from unreasonable searches and seizure.

The warren court is the total outlier and anomaly at law in the definition of the personhood of the unborn. The unborn have ALWAYS been persons, and are now persons in all aspects of law, except in the case of a pregnant woman and her doctor killing her unborn child. Even then this, grotesque denial of personhood to all other unborn baby's in all other matters of law wasn't the factor in allowing abortion PRIVACY was, not found in either the 5th or 14th amendment as the Warren court said it was.

Because Roe v Wade was a decision based upon warped, inconsistent and nonexistent law, that flew in the face of everything legal, and limited itself to abortion solely, IT WILL BE OVERTURNED

You are mistaken. Read:

"According to personhood activists, the purpose of state-level personhood efforts is to grant constitutional recognition of prenatal life as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to set up a battle between the federal privacy rights established in Roe, on one hand, and state-created civil rights for prenatal life on the other. This argument is not legally sound, however, because personhood activists fail to recognize the difference between “natural personhood” and “juridical personhood.”


Personhood activists believe that passing state-level personhood laws will fill a legal gap identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. In Roe, the Supreme Court expressly rejected Texas’s claim that a “fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of” the Constitution, and in so doing, pointed out inconsistencies in Texas’s argument.


The Court pointed out, for example, that no state, including Texas banned all abortions. The Court further pointed out that the exceptions to abortion bans that routinely existed in state law at the time were out of line with Texas’s argument in Roe that “a fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law.” In other words, Texas couldn’t point to any state law that recognized fetuses as persons. Personhood activists, therefore, seek to avoid this inconsistency by enacting laws that specifically recognize the so-called unborn as persons.


Once states confer personhood rights upon eggs, personhood activists believe that they can successfully argue for abortion bans based on newly-created civil rights for prenatal life—rights they think will provide a counterweight to the federally-protected privacy rights established in Roe v. Wade. Personhood activists and legislators will then argue that under the Constitution, the civil rights of the unborn are paramount to the privacy rights of women.


But even if states successfully pass fetal personhood bills that doesn’t necessarily mean that a fetus will suddenly be granted the same rights as a pregnant woman. Why? Because personhood activists are confused about what a “person” is, what “personhood” means, and what rights personhood status will confer upon fetuses.


First, it is important to recognize that “person” is a term of art. Colloquially speaking, when we think of “person” we think of an existing human being, which is why discussions of “corporate personhood” can be so baffling. One associates “persons” with feelings, and emotions, and activity. But as a legal matter, “person” defines the sorts of activities and entities (whether human or not) that are entitled to constitutional protection, and the type of “person” determines what types of constitutional protections are afforded. For example, in the famous case Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court denied personhood to slaves, even though today, few would argue that slaves are not “persons” in a colloquial sense.

So what is “personhood?” It depends on whether one is talking about natural personhood or juridical personhood.

continued below...

 

[godnotgod]

edited:

“Natural personhood” refers to persons as the term is understood in common parlance. Sir William Blackstone characterized “natural persons” as those “such as the God of nature formed us.” Natural persons don’t have to wait for a court or state to grant them rights; the rights available to “natural persons” attach at birth. While the constitutional rights afforded “natural persons” are subject to change, whatever constitutional liberties are available, “natural persons” are entitled to them. In short, “natural persons” are alive and breathing people with all of the rights that one normally associates with being an alive breathing person.


“Juridical personhood,” on the other hand, refers to “artificial persons.” Juridical persons are legal fictions, and are granted by states certain rights normally associated with live, breathing persons. These rights are do not attach at birth, and whether or not juridical persons are afforded constitutional rights is subject to the whims of the state. There is no framework for determining what rights shall be granted to a juridical person, and generally, such rights are granted in an effort to accomplish a particular social goal.


Accordingly, to the extent states confer personhood status upon fetuses, fetuses will be juridical persons, not natural persons. And whatever rights are conferred, such rights will not—or at least should not—translate into a broad “right to life.”


At the outset, states cannot grant fetuses rights that infringe women’s constitutional privacy rights. That’s Supremacy Clause 101. Most importantly, however, states that legislate an interest in protecting life do so in their own interest.


Both Roe and Casey establish that states have a “important and legitimate interest in potential life.” As a constitutional matter, therefore, fetuses don’t have any rights—states do. And in the abortion context, it is the right of the state to protect potential life that is legally significant—not the right of the fetus to grow from juridical personhood to natural personhood.


Personhood activists seem to be confused on this point. They believe that when states grant personhood rights to fetuses, those rights immediately take on constitutional importance at the federal level, such that fetuses are automatically granted the same constitutional rights to which natural persons are entitled. Those rights can then act as a counterweight to the federal privacy rights afforded to women by Roe v. Wade and, ultimately, be deemed paramount to those rights—or, at least, that’s what personhood activists think. But they are incorrect."

continued...

 

[godnotgod]

"For example, in a paper entitled “Personhood: A Path to Victory,” Gualberto Garcia Jones J.D. notes (in all caps, no less):

STATES POSSESS THE RIGHTS TO ENACT CONSTITUTIONS WITH RIGHTS THAT ARE MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THOSE THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Jones goes on to argue,

Itʼs a well established principle of law that states possess the rights to enact constitutions with rights that are more expansive than those that are contained in the federal constitution.

Well yes—that’s true. But states cannot enact rights that are more expansive than federal rights if such rights conflict with existing federal rights. Again, that’s Supremacy Clause 101.

Jones continues:

By adopting an expansive definition of the word person, which would include protection of the preborn, the states would be issuing a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which interpreted the 14th amendment to say that the right to privacy included a right to abortion which the states could not infringe upon. In deciding [a case arising from a conflict between state personhood laws and Roe v. Wade], the Court might very well find that the right to an abortion is nowhere to be found in the 14th amendment and that the states may regulate it as they wish.

Actually, no—the Court would likely do no such thing. The Supreme Court did not predicate abortion rights on an explicit right to abortion in the text of the Constitution, but rather on the penumbra of rights implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would vitiate Roe v. Wade, hold that there is no federal right to privacy for women, thus leaving women’s reproductive rights to the whims of the state.

Similarly, in an article entitled “The Personhood Strategy: A State’s Prerogative to Take Back Abortion Law,” Rita M. Dunaway asserts,

By enacting a statute or constitutional amendment specifically recognizing unborn children as human beings and clarifying that all human beings within the state are possessed of fundamental rights under the state‟s laws, states can provide unborn children with a source of fundamental rights independent from the Supreme Court‟s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, no. The rights conferred by states cannot trump the rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution. Remember? Supremacy Clause? And even if fetuses were elevated to the status of person, they would remain juridical persons, and juridical persons are not natural persons.

The bottom line is this: even if states were to enact fetal personhood laws, states would simply be clarifying their interest in protecting potential life, not creating a fetal right to life. Under Roe, the only right that could trump a woman’s right to privacy is a state’s compelling interest in potential life, not some right to actual life held by the fetus itself. And, as Justice Kennedy explained in Gonzales v. Carhart, (citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which held that states may not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion), a balance must be struck between a woman’s right to abortion and a state’s right to “express profound respect for the life of the unborn.” This suggests that personhood activists will have a difficult time convincing the Court that the rights of the unborn are paramount to a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

Ultimately, Roe and Casey pit state’s rights against women’s rights, not women’s rights against fetal rights. And, under the current constitutional framework, as between a woman’s federally-granted right to privacy and a state’s right to protect potential life, women’s rights are—or at least should be—paramount."

https://rewire.news/article/2013/01...ns-are-not-natural-persons-and-why-it-matter/

 

[shmogie]

"For example, in a paper entitled “Personhood: A Path to Victory,” Gualberto Garcia Jones J.D. notes (in all caps, no less):

STATES POSSESS THE RIGHTS TO ENACT CONSTITUTIONS WITH RIGHTS THAT ARE MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THOSE THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Jones goes on to argue,

Itʼs a well established principle of law that states possess the rights to enact constitutions with rights that are more expansive than those that are contained in the federal constitution.

Well yes—that’s true. But states cannot enact rights that are more expansive than federal rights if such rights conflict with existing federal rights. Again, that’s Supremacy Clause 101.

Jones continues:

By adopting an expansive definition of the word person, which would include protection of the preborn, the states would be issuing a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which interpreted the 14th amendment to say that the right to privacy included a right to abortion which the states could not infringe upon. In deciding [a case arising from a conflict between state personhood laws and Roe v. Wade], the Court might very well find that the right to an abortion is nowhere to be found in the 14th amendment and that the states may regulate it as they wish.

Actually, no—the Court would likely do no such thing. The Supreme Court did not predicate abortion rights on an explicit right to abortion in the text of the Constitution, but rather on the penumbra of rights implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would vitiate Roe v. Wade, hold that there is no federal right to privacy for women, thus leaving women’s reproductive rights to the whims of the state.

Similarly, in an article entitled “The Personhood Strategy: A State’s Prerogative to Take Back Abortion Law,” Rita M. Dunaway asserts,

By enacting a statute or constitutional amendment specifically recognizing unborn children as human beings and clarifying that all human beings within the state are possessed of fundamental rights under the state‟s laws, states can provide unborn children with a source of fundamental rights independent from the Supreme Court‟s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, no. The rights conferred by states cannot trump the rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution. Remember? Supremacy Clause? And even if fetuses were elevated to the status of person, they would remain juridical persons, and juridical persons are not natural persons.

The bottom line is this: even if states were to enact fetal personhood laws, states would simply be clarifying their interest in protecting potential life, not creating a fetal right to life. Under Roe, the only right that could trump a woman’s right to privacy is a state’s compelling interest in potential life, not some right to actual life held by the fetus itself. And, as Justice Kennedy explained in Gonzales v. Carhart, (citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which held that states may not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion), a balance must be struck between a woman’s right to abortion and a state’s right to “express profound respect for the life of the unborn.” This suggests that personhood activists will have a difficult time convincing the Court that the rights of the unborn are paramount to a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

Ultimately, Roe and Casey pit state’s rights against women’s rights, not women’s rights against fetal rights. And, under the current constitutional framework, as between a woman’s federally-granted right to privacy and a state’s right to protect potential life, women’s rights are—or at least should be—paramount."

https://rewire.news/article/2013/01...ns-are-not-natural-persons-and-why-it-matter/

Interesting, but it all changes nothing. A plethora of opinion nothing more. Declaring in court that when a judge says "........................to protect her unborn babies" He is not saying "......................to protect her potential unborn babies"

This is a classic example of the contortionism that abortionists and their allies ( the Warren court ) have had to exercise to deny equal protection under the law. They deny 500 years of common law and 175 years of American law.

No one in their right mind would contend that the Founders wrote the Constitution and the bill of rights to allow a full term baby to be stabbed in the brain as it is being born.

It is a nonsensical argument that one can be convicted of murder for killing a POTENTIAL person.

If the Warren court was interested in anything but sanctioning the killing of unborn babies, why didn't they make a clear, unambiguous ruling that federal law based upon the unambiguous declaration of the Constitution that ALL unborn babies are not persons in all and every application ? They wouldn't have even had to come up with the bizarre concept of privacy to cover abortion killing .

You say incorporation makes the difference ? If I were sitting in prison convicted of murdering two people when I killed my pregnant girlfriend incorporation would do little to make me feel better.

Bottom line is this, killing an unborn child is murder, EXCEPT, when you are a physician killing an unborn child.

This is inherently illogical by the rules of logic, inherently unfair, creates a total double standard, and 80% of the American people believe these atrocities should have restrictions placed upon them.

You argument fails with me as it does with most Americans. Unfettered abortion is a legal and moral blot upon the nation. I well continue to make contributions to specific legal defense funds for unborn children, and make no mistake, the issue will be revisited by the court.

If the peoples republic of kalifornia is justified in the liberal mind for ignoring federal law, and it's officials inciting the breaking of federal law, then I would applaud a state or states telling the federal government to go to hell when it comes to protecting unborn persons in that state or states.

Lets see how it all works out shall we ? Just how much abuse of the Constitution on a variety of issues will the people accept ?

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the people have the RIGHT to change a non responsive to the people government or system of government as they choose.

Abortion is one of a number of issues that tens of millions believe the government is deaf to the peoples will.

Is the nation so polarized on this issue as others that, as one Founder said, "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots from time to time"....................?

 

[godnotgod]

Interesting, but it all changes nothing. A plethora of opinion nothing more. Declaring in court that when a judge says "........................to protect her unborn babies" He is not saying "......................to protect her potential unborn babies"

This is a classic example of the contortionism that abortionists and their allies ( the Warren court ) have had to exercise to deny equal protection under the law. They deny 500 years of common law and 175 years of American law.

No one in their right mind would contend that the Founders wrote the Constitution and the bill of rights to allow a full term baby to be stabbed in the brain as it is being born.

It is a nonsensical argument that one can be convicted of murder for killing a POTENTIAL person.

If the Warren court was interested in anything but sanctioning the killing of unborn babies, why didn't they make a clear, unambiguous ruling that federal law based upon the unambiguous declaration of the Constitution that ALL unborn babies are not persons in all and every application ? They wouldn't have even had to come up with the bizarre concept of privacy to cover abortion killing .

You say incorporation makes the difference ? If I were sitting in prison convicted of murdering two people when I killed my pregnant girlfriend incorporation would do little to make me feel better.

Bottom line is this, killing an unborn child is murder, EXCEPT, when you are a physician killing an unborn child.

This is inherently illogical by the rules of logic, inherently unfair, creates a total double standard, and 80% of the American people believe these atrocities should have restrictions placed upon them.

You argument fails with me as it does with most Americans. Unfettered abortion is a legal and moral blot upon the nation. I well continue to make contributions to specific legal defense funds for unborn children, and make no mistake, the issue will be revisited by the court.

If the peoples republic of kalifornia is justified in the liberal mind for ignoring federal law, and it's officials inciting the breaking of federal law, then I would applaud a state or states telling the federal government to go to hell when it comes to protecting unborn persons in that state or states.

Lets see how it all works out shall we ? Just how much abuse of the Constitution on a variety of issues will the people accept ?

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the people have the RIGHT to change a non responsive to the people government or system of government as they choose.

Abortion is one of a number of issues that tens of millions believe the government is deaf to the peoples will.

Is the nation so polarized on this issue as others that, as one Founder said, "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots from time to time"....................?

If you were in a position where you had to decide which to save: the unborn fetus or the mother, which would you choose?

 

[shmogie]

If you were in a position where you had to decide which to save: the unborn fetus or the mother, which would you choose?

If there were no other choice medically, I personally would choose to save the mother. It should be no different for the physician than a first responder choosing which of two people to save from a burning car.

A question then for you. If a woman wanted an abortion full term, where the baby must be partially born before it can be killed, would you then stab it in the brain as it's head emerges?

 

[godnotgod]

If there were no other choice medically, I personally would choose to save the mother. It should be no different for the physician than a first responder choosing which of two people to save from a burning car.

And that is because the mother is a natural person with natural rights and an established life, while an unborn fetus has no established personhood or life. IOW, the mother's life is considered more valuable by society.

A question then for you. If a woman wanted an abortion full term, where the baby must be partially born before it can be killed, would you then stab it in the brain as it's head emerges?

Probably would seek less violent methods. But unlike you, my point of departure would be the woman's right to choose. Society does not yet have an investment in terms of socialization in an unborn fetus, or even a partially born fetus. The fetus is the result of an intimate, private relation between a man and a woman, assuming no rape. A person is the result of parental and societal socialization and indoctrination. You are seeing the entire issue through the lens of your religious views.

You have yet to provide a legal definition of the word 'person'.

 

[shmogie]

And that is because the mother is a natural person with natural rights and an established life, while an unborn fetus has no established personhood or life. IOW, the mother's life is considered more valuable by society.



Probably would seek less violent methods. But unlike you, my point of departure would be the woman's right to choose. Society does not yet have an investment in terms of socialization in an unborn fetus, or even a partially born fetus. The fetus is the result of an intimate, private relation between a man and a woman, assuming no rape. A person is the result of parental and societal socialization and indoctrination. You are seeing the entire issue through the lens of your religious views.

You have yet to provide a legal definition of the word 'person'.

Obviously based upon common law, US law for 175 years, and state law, an unborn child is a person. The argument can be made that in the first trimester a clump of non specialized cells is not a person, after that, there is no doubt.

You speak of "the right to choose". Please tell me where that right is found in the Constitution, or even in Roe. A RIGHT must be articulated, where is it ?

Who cares where a life comes from, we all know that. Baby's come from people who hate one another as well. So, a baby comes from a private relationship

I knew sooner or later you would pull the religion card, abortionists and their allies always do. My argument is based solely on the law, and the total anomaly that killing an unborn child is.

I see no difference in your argument, than in the one used by eugenics and its big supporter, hitler. The infirm, the seriously disabled, the mentally challenged, are just as inconvenient to the parents or state as a healthy baby can be, why not kill them ?

Here is the absurdity of your argument, a baby in the birth canal is nothing, 15 seconds later, out of the birth canal, it is a precious human life. The founders would have been absolutely horrified at this brutality and its refutation of civility and humane treatment. To go even further and state that a fully functioning, healthy baby, can be PARTIALLY BORN, then killed is the height of barbarity, no different than the ancient Greeks who left unwanted girl babies in the weather till they died, or the Carthaginians who sacrificed babies fir good luck. The only difference is that in America babies are sacrificed to the God convenience.

As stated in the Declaration the right to life is first, and when it was written it was encoded that the unborn had this right. After the Constitution was adopted, with the majority of the Founders still alive, abortion of the unborn was encoded in the law as murder. If they found this contrary to the Constitution, why didn't they say so ? Why is there no article written by any of them on this matter ? Do you think there were no parents who were sloppy with the birth control methods of the time ? Do you think all pregnancy's were wanted ?

Religion has jack to do with it. It is kowtowing to brutality by the warren court contrary to all previous law that is the issue, and the stupidity of the unborn being nothing if the mothers want to kill them, but being something, persons, when they are attacked and killed in any other setting..

This isn't a miscarriage of justice, it is infanticide, pre meditated murder in any legal setting going back at least 500 years. Pretending it isn't, is buying another fantasy that some in society ask you to buy into. 80% of Americans refuse to.

Let me guess, and be sure and correct me if I am wrong, but you are against post birth abortions, execution, for convicted murderers, right ?

 

[godnotgod]

Obviously based upon common law, US law for 175 years, and state law, an unborn child is a person. The argument can be made that in the first trimester a clump of non specialized cells is not a person, after that, there is no doubt.

You speak of "the right to choose". Please tell me where that right is found in the Constitution, or even in Roe. A RIGHT must be articulated, where is it ?

Who cares where a life comes from, we all know that. Baby's come from people who hate one another as well. So, a baby comes from a private relationship

I knew sooner or later you would pull the religion card, abortionists and their allies always do. My argument is based solely on the law, and the total anomaly that killing an unborn child is.

I see no difference in your argument, than in the one used by eugenics and its big supporter, hitler. The infirm, the seriously disabled, the mentally challenged, are just as inconvenient to the parents or state as a healthy baby can be, why not kill them ?

Here is the absurdity of your argument, a baby in the birth canal is nothing, 15 seconds later, out of the birth canal, it is a precious human life. The founders would have been absolutely horrified at this brutality and its refutation of civility and humane treatment. To go even further and state that a fully functioning, healthy baby, can be PARTIALLY BORN, then killed is the height of barbarity, no different than the ancient Greeks who left unwanted girl babies in the weather till they died, or the Carthaginians who sacrificed babies fir good luck. The only difference is that in America babies are sacrificed to the God convenience.

As stated in the Declaration the right to life is first, and when it was written it was encoded that the unborn had this right. After the Constitution was adopted, with the majority of the Founders still alive, abortion of the unborn was encoded in the law as murder. If they found this contrary to the Constitution, why didn't they say so ? Why is there no article written by any of them on this matter ? Do you think there were no parents who were sloppy with the birth control methods of the time ? Do you think all pregnancy's were wanted ?

Religion has jack to do with it. It is kowtowing to brutality by the warren court contrary to all previous law that is the issue, and the stupidity of the unborn being nothing if the mothers want to kill them, but being something, persons, when they are attacked and killed in any other setting..

This isn't a miscarriage of justice, it is infanticide, pre meditated murder in any legal setting going back at least 500 years. Pretending it isn't, is buying another fantasy that some in society ask you to buy into. 80% of Americans refuse to.

Let me guess, and be sure and correct me if I am wrong, but you are against post birth abortions, execution, for convicted murderers, right ?

As I understand it, you are a Christian. What does your religion dictate to you re: abortion?

Did you or society create the fetus? No. A man and a woman did, in the privacy of their lives. They owe nothing to society or to you in terms of information about how, when, and why they accomplished this. It is none of your business, nor is it the business of the state. What a woman decides to do with her own body is her business, and hers alone. I don't know what common law said before Roe vs. Wade, but R vs W came after that, and is the current law. You want to discard the law because your religious doctrine takes precedence. Don't lie and try to make things up. In the Christian view, man made law is always subjugated to the dictates of the Christian god. This issue is exactly why we need to strengthen separation of church and state, so those, like yourself, who would bend the law to suit their religious views (and comfort level) cannot create a theocratic society.

From a biblical POV:

"... by examining the punishment for the wrongful killing of a fetus the most insightful and accurate understanding of how the bible views a fetus can be ascertained. The verses most on point when it comes to abortion are Exodus 21:22-25 which state:

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders]. 23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. 25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

The woman is not killed in the passage. Only the fetus dies in the encounter. The resulting punishment for the miscarriage is a mere fine. The Bible continues with declaring that had the woman died the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a “life for a life.” If the fetus was considered a life then the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a “life for a life” but since a fine is imposed it is understood that the fetus is not considered a life. From this it is clearly understood that a fetus is not considered a full human life, otherwise the punishment would be death under the subsequently enumerated literal biblical principle of lex talionis (‘eye for an eye’).

Do you think the Bible would proscribe a monetary punishment for the killing of a human being? The Bible does not even deem the act of wrongfully causing a miscarriage as criminal. It’s obvious that based on a literal reading of this passage, the Bible does not view a fetus as a full human life or abortion as murder.

It is also noteworthy that as early as Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that life begins at birth, declaring that God “breathed into his [Adam’s] nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.” The verse implies that until Adam took his first breath he was not considered a living being.*

Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Not a single verse yet the anti-abortion movement continues to declare, in the name of God, that abortion is murder. It seems that God left out the prohibition of abortion or perhaps does not consider a fetus a full human life.

Is Abortion Murder? A Biblical View Says 'NO' | HuffPost

So if The Bible has no prohibition against abortion as murder, then the common law you refer to which does, must be subjugated to the law of God. IOW, common law is in error, and Roe vs. Wade is the correct view.

*This idea of Adam having been created 'from the dust of the Earth' coincides with the Artifact View of the Universe, in which God is The Maker, and all things (including man) are artifacts of the creator. God is sometimes depicted as a potter, with man as the clay, or God as an architect, the designer of a world that is 'made', not grown. IOW, a 'thing'.

Legal definition of 'person'?

 

[shmogie]

As I understand it, you are a Christian. What does your religion dictate to you re: abortion?

Did you or society create the fetus? No. A man and a woman did, in the privacy of their lives. They owe nothing to society or to you in terms of information about how, when, and why they accomplished this. It is none of your business, nor is it the business of the state. What a woman decides to do with her own body is her business, and hers alone. I don't know what common law said before Roe vs. Wade, but R vs W came after that, and is the current law. You want to discard the law because your religious doctrine takes precedence. Don't lie and try to make things up. In the Christian view, man made law is always subjugated to the dictates of the Christian god. This issue is exactly why we need to strengthen separation of church and state, so those, like yourself, who would bend the law to suit their religious views (and comfort level) cannot create a theocratic society.

From a biblical POV:

"... by examining the punishment for the wrongful killing of a fetus the most insightful and accurate understanding of how the bible views a fetus can be ascertained. The verses most on point when it comes to abortion are Exodus 21:22-25 which state:

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders]. 23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. 25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

The woman is not killed in the passage. Only the fetus dies in the encounter. The resulting punishment for the miscarriage is a mere fine. The Bible continues with declaring that had the woman died the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a “life for a life.” If the fetus was considered a life then the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a “life for a life” but since a fine is imposed it is understood that the fetus is not considered a life. From this it is clearly understood that a fetus is not considered a full human life, otherwise the punishment would be death under the subsequently enumerated literal biblical principle of lex talionis (‘eye for an eye’).

Do you think the Bible would proscribe a monetary punishment for the killing of a human being? The Bible does not even deem the act of wrongfully causing a miscarriage as criminal. It’s obvious that based on a literal reading of this passage, the Bible does not view a fetus as a full human life or abortion as murder.

It is also noteworthy that as early as Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that life begins at birth, declaring that God “breathed into his [Adam’s] nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.” The verse implies that until Adam took his first breath he was not considered a living being.*

Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Not a single verse yet the anti-abortion movement continues to declare, in the name of God, that abortion is murder. It seems that God left out the prohibition of abortion or perhaps does not consider a fetus a full human life.

Is Abortion Murder? A Biblical View Says 'NO' | HuffPost

So if The Bible has no prohibition against abortion as murder, then the common law you refer to which does, must be subjugated to the law of God. IOW, common law is in error, and Roe vs. Wade is the correct view.

*This idea of Adam having been created 'from the dust of the Earth' coincides with the Artifact View of the Universe, in which God is The Maker, and all things (including man) are artifacts of the creator. God is sometimes depicted as a potter, with man as the clay, or God as an architect, the designer of a world that is 'made', not grown. IOW, a 'thing'.

Legal definition of 'person'?

The religious aspect has no relevance to this discussion. In spite of your effort, attempting to marginalize the issue by bringing in the huffington post as a theological authority is hilarious. I haven´t read what you posted re the Bible because it isn´t part of my argument. Huffington post, now there is a real authority on all subjects, right ?

Your opinion of what is right or wrong is irrelevant as well. the warren court came up with an excuse to kill unborn children, an excuse that is denied in any other circumstance.

An unborn child isn´t part of a womanś body, it has a totally different genetic makeup than her body, it could even have a different blood type.

I asked you some questionś that you didn´t answer, why is that ?

Bottom line is that you support the wanton murder of a living child with a beating heart, a functioning brain, organs and appendages and feels pain, because itś mother decides it is inconvenient. Abortionists hide between an abhorrent ******* law that was promulgated by an activist court. The murder of an unborn child is sanctioned in no other area but this.

Sad, but it will change.

 

[oldbadger]

I see that this thread has focused upon the 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' debate.

What I cannot understand is how many pro-life advocates lose all interest in the child AFTER birth!

1. All persons born disabled should receive 'whole-life' medical care, travel-assistance and social support according to their disability, paid for by tax-dollars.

2. All children should receive full education and medical, dental provision and financial allowance until legal adulthood, paid for by tax dollars.

But I have noticed in the past that many pro-life supporters become very upset at the above suggestions, which does suggest high levels of hypocrisy amongst this group?

 

[godnotgod]

I see that this thread has focused upon the 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' debate.

What I cannot understand is how many pro-life advocates lose all interest in the child AFTER birth!

1. All persons born disabled should receive 'whole-life' medical care, travel-assistance and social support according to their disability, paid for by tax-dollars.

2. All children should receive full education and medical, dental provision and financial allowance until legal adulthood, paid for by tax dollars.

But I have noticed in the past that many pro-life supporters become very upset at the above suggestions, which does suggest high levels of hypocrisy amongst this group?

With one blow, you have hit several nails squarely on their heads.

shmogie and others may deny any religious influence in their positions, but they are fully driven by it, having been hardwired as it was during their religious indoctrinations into their little heads. They want the law to reflect those religious views, which for the most part say that their god has created this unborn fetus and that it has a 'soul', that must be saved. Willful termination of the fetus is the murder of their god's handiwork, a powerful taboo. Generally speaking, this god is everything, and man is nothing, and so man, or rather woman, has little say-so in deciding the fate of the unborn. So they paint a picture of 'precious life', but then fail to put their money where thier mouth is and support those policies to nurture a healthy and happy life for them, as you point out. The generally wealthy, conservative religious types foist the system of reward and punishment upon the young, telling them that they, too, can have a nice house, a good job with the company, a couple of nice cars, and a wife and family to boot if they do the 'right' Christian thing, which is to obey and submit and do as they're told. Today, this is called the 'prosperity gospel' by the televangelists. Jesus wants you to have a new car and fine clothing, but if you are poor, that is your fault, because you did not do the right Christian thing. Used to be that if you were poor, you were blessed and would inherit the entire Kingdom. Now you have to earn it via licking the boots of the elders, which serves to reinforce the notion that Jesus actually did reward them for their good Christian behavior. It's such a convoluted psychosis.

 

[godnotgod]

The religious aspect has no relevance to this discussion. In spite of your effort, attempting to marginalize the issue by bringing in the huffington post as a theological authority is hilarious. I haven´t read what you posted re the Bible because it isn´t part of my argument. Huffington post, now there is a real authority on all subjects, right ?

Wrong! If you had read it, you would have realized that it has zilch to do with the HP, and everything to do with Exodus 21:22-25 as the authority. The author of the piece is simply pointing to it so you can see it for yourself. But you don't really want to know the truth, so you conveniently ignore it by sticking your head in the sand.

Your opinion of what is right or wrong is irrelevant as well. the warren court came up with an excuse to kill unborn children, an excuse that is denied in any other circumstance.

It is not my opinion, but what your scripture actually states re: the legality of abortion.

An unborn child isn´t part of a womanś body, it has a totally different genetic makeup than her body, it could even have a different blood type.

So? The fetus has half of the father's DNA and half of the mother's DNA. The fetus is dependent upon the mother to the tune of 100%, and is fed nutrients and blood via the umbilical cord which is it's lifeline to the mother without which it would die. Not part of the mother? That's ridiculous and you are now clutching at straws.

Bottom line is that you support the wanton murder of a living child with a beating heart, a functioning brain, organs and appendages and feels pain, because itś mother decides it is inconvenient. Abortionists hide between an abhorrent ******* law that was promulgated by an activist court. The murder of an unborn child is sanctioned in no other area but this.

Sad, but it will change.

Roe vs Wade was not a fast one pulled by the judges for convenience's sake to protect abortion as you continue to falsely claim to support your religious agenda, but about the state of Texas' violation of the constitutional rights of women. An excerpt from the case makes this perfectly clear:

[Jane] Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.

James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes and 121*121 that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12334123945835207673&q=roe+v.+wade&hl=en&as_sdt=20006

See how your hard-wired religious indoctrination is constantly twisting things in your brain?

 

[shmogie]

I see that this thread has focused upon the 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' debate.

What I cannot understand is how many pro-life advocates lose all interest in the child AFTER birth!

1. All persons born disabled should receive 'whole-life' medical care, travel-assistance and social support according to their disability, paid for by tax-dollars.

2. All children should receive full education and medical, dental provision and financial allowance until legal adulthood, paid for by tax dollars.

But I have noticed in the past that many pro-life supporters become very upset at the above suggestions, which does suggest high levels of hypocrisy amongst this group?[/QUOT Most of your "suggestions" occur in the USA, I know of no pro life person that is upset about this.

 

[shmogie]

Wrong! If you had read it, you would have realized that it has zilch to do with the HP, and everything to do with Exodus 21:22-25 as the authority. The author of the piece is simply pointing to it so you can see it for yourself. But you don't really want to know the truth, so you conveniently ignore it by sticking your head in the sand.



It is not my opinion, but what your scripture actually states re: the legality of abortion.



So? The fetus has half of the father's DNA and half of the mother's DNA. The fetus is dependent upon the mother to the tune of 100%, and is fed nutrients and blood via the umbilical cord which is it's lifeline to the mother without which it would die. Not part of the mother? That's ridiculous and you are now clutching at straws.



Roe vs Wade was not a fast one pulled by the judges for convenience's sake to protect abortion as you continue to falsely claim to support your religious agenda, but about the state of Texas' violation of the constitutional rights of women. An excerpt from the case makes this perfectly clear:

[Jane] Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.

James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes and 121*121 that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12334123945835207673&q=roe+v.+wade&hl=en&as_sdt=20006

See how your hard-wired religious indoctrination is constantly twisting things in your brain?

This conversation is ended. Like ALL atheists, you cannot have a debate on any issue without bringing your anti Christian propaganda if you know the person with whom you are conversing is a Christian. This is inevitable as shown in this discussion. YOU brought up religion, not I, you could not restrain yourself from attacking me on the basis of faith, though I never made it, at any time, as my reason for objecting to the murder of a baby. Interestingly, many, many atheists, who are also right thinking compassionate people hold the same position.

Though your Torah based Bible exegesis is fatally flawed, and in fact the true Christian position on premeditated murder is that it is premeditated murder, I have no interest in shredding your bogus alleged Biblical position, though it is easily done. I don't cast pearls before swine.

Even if the Bible said what you imagine it does, my position would not change one iota. My personal value of an innocent human life trumps any other consideration that might lead to it's slaughter. I personally have seen way to many dead body's, including that of my own son, born early with a condition that killed him within a few fours of birth, to pretend that death for any person is less than what it is, a cosmic tragedy.

You failed to quote one sentence from the Constitution that unambiguously makes a statement about privacy, as I knew you wouldn't, it is not there.

I notice you totally blew off my question about capital punishment. Therefore you must be like most atheist/liberal hypocrites on the matter. The moist evil pathological killer must be protected from justice at all costs, their life being of infinite value, but the killers of hundreds of baby's are doing their killing in "private" no justice applies to them. Though the execution of a murderer results in liberal outrage for killing this oh so valuable person, you embrace, almost with glee, the stabbing through the brain with scissors a viable, within seconds of being fully born, healthy baby. To say that I can;'t understand why any person with a shred of decency could support that is putting it mildly.

It has been an interesting discussion, thank you, but no more. It isn't about religion, but your prejudice and predictability because of it is so strong, you had to trot it out. I am not going there. Murder is murder, religion has nothing to do with it.

Adieu, ciao, hasta la vista, goodbye

 

[godnotgod]

This conversation is ended. Like ALL atheists, you cannot have a debate on any issue without bringing your anti Christian propaganda if you know the person with whom you are conversing is a Christian. This is inevitable as shown in this discussion. YOU brought up religion, not I, you could not restrain yourself from attacking me on the basis of faith, though I never made it, at any time, as my reason for objecting to the murder of a baby. Interestingly, many, many atheists, who are also right thinking compassionate people hold the same position.

Though your Torah based Bible exegesis is fatally flawed, and in fact the true Christian position on premeditated murder is that it is premeditated murder, I have no interest in shredding your bogus alleged Biblical position, though it is easily done. I don't cast pearls before swine.

Even if the Bible said what you imagine it does, my position would not change one iota. My personal value of an innocent human life trumps any other consideration that might lead to it's slaughter. I personally have seen way to many dead body's, including that of my own son, born early with a condition that killed him within a few fours of birth, to pretend that death for any person is less than what it is, a cosmic tragedy.

You failed to quote one sentence from the Constitution that unambiguously makes a statement about privacy, as I knew you wouldn't, it is not there.

I notice you totally blew off my question about capital punishment. Therefore you must be like most atheist/liberal hypocrites on the matter. The moist evil pathological killer must be protected from justice at all costs, their life being of infinite value, but the killers of hundreds of baby's are doing their killing in "private" no justice applies to them. Though the execution of a murderer results in liberal outrage for killing this oh so valuable person, you embrace, almost with glee, the stabbing through the brain with scissors a viable, within seconds of being fully born, healthy baby. To say that I can;'t understand why any person with a shred of decency could support that is putting it mildly.

It has been an interesting discussion, thank you, but no more. It isn't about religion, but your prejudice and predictability because of it is so strong, you had to trot it out. I am not going there. Murder is murder, religion has nothing to do with it.

Adieu, ciao, hasta la vista, goodbye

Nice cop-out, but does not convince. Even as you leave, you attempt to paint a picture of yourself as the victim. Oh, poor little me! Why do they hate us Christians!

You are a Christian, and your doctrine dictates that abortion is murder. Period. For you, that is the issue, but that is not the issue. The issue is the violation of a woman's constitutional rights, as laid out in Roe vs Wade. But your religious indoctrination skews the issue to transform it into something that fits your religious views. If you and your ilk get their way, it will be the beginning of a theocracy, and then you will see murder, justified by your god, on a mass scale as you've never seen before. Your beliefs are not faith; they're a hidden insanity, propped up as wonderfullness from your god.

Don't you understand that the Texas state law prohibiting abortion is at root a religiously driven idea? It is obvious that yours is not apparent to you. But that is typical of a conditioned mentality which pits Good against Evil, where the "right hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth". C'mon, you're not fooling me: been there, done that. I know all about Persona and Shadow, and the balancing act they play one against the other.

FYI, I am not an atheist, but I am not a theist either. Now you're really confused, aren't you!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My argument is based solely on the law

Then your argument over. The Court has spoken.

You don't really believe that anybody thinks that you are only making a legal argument here with no basis in your religious beliefs or appeal to moral values, do you? You are visibly agitated. This is a moral argument for you, which means it's based on your religious beliefs, the source of your values in this area.

But you are trying to keep moral arguments out of the discussion, and cut off another poster when he mentioned religion. You steadfastly refuse to address the pro-choice / anti-choice issue, which is the dominant moral issue for the pro-choice people, reminding the thread that you are only willing to discuss legal issues.

By avoiding that argument, you preemptively try to exclude others from simply saying that they don't share your values, which is the end of that discussion. You'd rather discuss whether a fetus is a person, throw out a lot emotionally evocative words like murder and baby, which, as you can see, does nothing for your case.

You speak of "the right to choose". Please tell me where that right is found in the Constitution

I'd look close to the place where they specify that you have the right to own assault weapons, just above the part where you are looking that says that the state has the right to compel a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. I think they call it the Incubator Clause.

Has this approach ever worked for you?

Here is the absurdity of your argument, a baby in the birth canal is nothing, 15 seconds later, out of the birth canal, it is a precious human life.

That must be your argument. I don't recall anybody making it.

But it wouldn't be absurd for legal purposes to define an arbitrary cut-off. It's a quarer to midnight and she's about to turn eighteen (or whatever the local age for consent is) in fifteen minutes. Touch her now, it's rape. Go watch Seinfeld for a half hour, come back, and its not.

The founders would have been absolutely horrified at this brutality and its refutation of civility and humane treatment.

I doubt it. But they're not here, are they?

As stated in the Declaration the right to life is first, and when it was written it was encoded that the unborn had this right.

In spite of your effort, attempting to marginalize the issue by bringing in the huffington post as a theological authority is hilarious. I haven´t read what you posted re the Bible because it isn´t part of my argument. Huffington post, now there is a real authority on all subjects, right ?

So I presume that you would accept the same response to your posting? If somebody uses the word hilarious or absurd in reference to your post, scoffs, sniffs, dismissively waves a hand at you, and tells you that you are not a theological authority, you're discredited, right? You should be disregarded?

 

[shmogie]

Then your argument over. The Court has spoken.

You don't really believe that anybody thinks that you are only making a legal argument here with no basis in your religious beliefs or appeal to moral values, do you? You are visibly agitated. This is a moral argument for you, which means it's based on your religious beliefs, the source of your values in this area.

But you are trying to keep moral arguments out of the discussion, and cut off another poster when he mentioned religion. You steadfastly refuse to address the pro-choice / anti-choice issue, which is the dominant moral issue for the pro-choice people, reminding the thread that you are only willing to discuss legal issues.

By avoiding that argument, you preemptively try to exclude others from simply saying that they don't share your values, which is the end of that discussion. You'd rather discuss whether a fetus is a person, throw out a lot emotionally evocative words like murder and baby, which, as you can see, does nothing for your case.



I'd look close to the place where they specify that you have the right to own assault weapons, just above the part where you are looking that says that the state has the right to compel a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. I think they call it the Incubator Clause.

Has this approach ever worked for you?



That must be your argument. I don't recall anybody making it.

But it wouldn't be absurd for legal purposes to define an arbitrary cut-off. It's a quarer to midnight and she's about to turn eighteen (or whatever the local age for consent is) in fifteen minutes. Touch her now, it's rape. Go watch Seinfeld for a half hour, come back, and its not.



I doubt it. But they're not here, are they?





So I presume that you would accept the same response to your posting? If somebody uses the word hilarious or absurd in reference to your post, scoffs, sniffs, dismissively waves a hand at you, and tells you that you are not a theological authority, you're discredited, right? You should be disregarded?

Your post is hilarious and absurd. The legal argument is simple. There is no explicit statement of privacy except from unreasonable searches and seizure anywhere in the Constitution. Unborn babies are considered persons as victims of murder and harm throughout the US. The Warren Court never addressed the personhood of the unborn across all lines, but rather performed their legal magic trick just for babies killed by physicians and their clients, thus denying these babyś equal protection under the law,

There it is, nothing about religion, no need, never intended.

My debate partner, now you, a cynical atheist cannot, help , but drag religion in and try to weaponize it when it was never part of my position, ever,. This is because of your abject hate, prejudice, and need to do what is always your need when dealing with persons of Faith, act superior and be smug.

When you are called on it being irrelevant, the whining and accusations begin. This isn´t an issue where I need to use religion. or chose to use it in reference to the subject. Because of this, and your inante prejudice YOU must bring it in, and then attach motives, never stated, on what YOU decide I believe. Do you still beat your wife ??

I sir scoff at you, sniff at you, am waving my hand at you, and tell you you are not a theological authority, you are discredited regarding my motives, my beliefs and this discussion. You will be disregarded by me, on this issue until I choose to discuss my religious beliefs on the matter. Quite frankly until I tell you what they are and tell you why I believe that way, it is none of your damn business.