Abortion

[Father Time]

What dictionary is SHE using, the Guttmacher version?

This is how MY dictionary defines "child":

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth

4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant

As we can see from both 1 and 4, its most general and non-contextually dependent definitions ABSOLUTELY include fetuses.

Dictionary.com

Ah, so the problem isn't that you're using a faulty dictionary that's lying to you. The problem is that you're a faulty human being who's lying to the rest of us. When I want my definitions cherry-picked to reflect your heinous and repulsive worldview, rest assured, I will ask you. Until then, you could at least PRETEND to be honest, if not literate.

So you think dictionary.com has a hidden liberal agenda and that they're secretly pro-abortion.



I suppose you think conservapedia is a viable source as well.

 

[Father Time]

Your position is your opinion. The court that decided Roe stated differently. They said in clear terms that should precedent exist for the personhood of unborns, the case would collapse as unborns would be protected under the 14th amendment. Such precedent has been established.

Where is this legal precedent that says fetuses are covered?

 

[SSDD]

Where is this legal precedent that says fetuses are covered?

People reside in prison today having been convicted of homicide in the deaths of unborns. One can only be convicted of homicide if one has killed a person.

In Roe, the court said:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

No case law existed at the time establishing the personhood of unborns. The same is not true today. If you are unable to look up specific cases, just ask and I will be happy to provide some although 1 is all that is necessary to establish the suggestion of personhood.

 

[SSDD]

So you think dictionary.com has a hidden liberal agenda and that they're secretly pro-abortion.



I suppose you think conservapedia is a viable source as well.

The issue wasn't the dictionary, it was the person cherry picking definitions that support her argument and pretending that the remaining defintions do not exist...and further ignoring what legal dictionaries say altogether in favor of a single entry from dictionary.com when that same dictionary defined child as a human fetus.

Arguing not only semantics, but cherry picked semantics is the most insubstantial form of argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you wish to treat this as a matter of law, then let's keep it to law. This hierarchy you are referring to is not law. It is philosophy. In law, abortion is legal. Therefore, the matter has been resolved.

No, it is a matter of law. When items are listed in a legal document, their order defines thier precedence. Our rights are laid out in a specific order in the declaration of independence which was, and continues to be a legal document. It is in essence the legal charter for the entity known as the United States. The constitution is the set of rules, bylaws, etc by which the promise of the charter will be carried out.

Now if you wish to deal with this as a matter of philosophy, then we are back to my point. There is no freedom unless you are free in your person.

I always stick to the law.

I deal with legal documents all the time. I have to interpret legal decisions and statutes all of the time. There is no such thing as an order of precedence in a legal document. Item 55 has just as much authority as item 1.

If you want to stick to the law, no problem. Abortion is not murder and it is legal. I'm glad we have finally put this entire issue to rest.

 

[PratchettFan]

No problem. I am injured in a accident and require a rare blood type.

Clearly it is a problem. I asked for you to describe a situation where you would find yourself, through no actions of your own, connected to AND dependent upon my bodily systems for your survival. An accident clearly does not leave you connected to me. If you can't come up with a situation that is analogous to an unborn's dependence upon its mother, then I am afraid you can't form a valid argument.

And there you have it. You begin by making the blanket statement that the right to life is paramount. But when it starts to become evident that this position takes you places you do not wish to go, you start to modify that position. Modify and modify until it just takes you where you want to go. Moral convenience.

That is the problem with the "pro-life" movement. You're not pro-life.

 

[AmyNation]

So you think dictionary.com has a hidden liberal agenda and that they're secretly pro-abortion.



I suppose you think conservapedia is a viable source as well.

The issue wasn't the dictionary, it was the person cherry picking definitions that support her argument and pretending that the remaining defintions do not exist...and further ignoring what legal dictionaries say altogether in favor of a single entry from dictionary.com when that same dictionary defined child as a human fetus.

Arguing not only semantics, but cherry picked semantics is the most insubstantial form of argument.

It's cherry picking and semantics to you because the definition disagrees with you.


A fetus is not a child, no matter how much you stomp your feet and declare otherwise.

 

[George Costanza]

Ah, so the problem isn't that you're using a faulty dictionary that's lying to you. The problem is that you're a faulty human being who's lying to the rest of us. When I want my definitions cherry-picked to reflect your heinous and repulsive worldview, rest assured, I will ask you. Until then, you could at least PRETEND to be honest, if not literate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs]Psyco - Lighten up Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

Legally abortion is not murder, abortion is legal. Now what about who has to pay for it? After all a porterhouse steak is legal, I have a right to chow down on a porterhouse steak, do you have the obligation to pay for it.

Abortion is an elective procedure. It is a woman's right to choose. As an elective procedure she should have to pay for it like having a nose job or a boob job. Some abortions are medically necessary. Some breast surgeries are medically necessary. Abortions are no different.

 

[SSDD]

I deal with legal documents all the time. I have to interpret legal decisions and statutes all of the time. There is no such thing as an order of precedence in a legal document. Item 55 has just as much authority as item 1.

Janitors in a hospital handle medical equimpent all the time as well. That doesn't mean that they understand them. Make yourself familiar with the order of precedence.

If you want to stick to the law, no problem. Abortion is not murder and it is legal. I'm glad we have finally put this entire issue to rest.

By the Roe decision itself, the case for abortion on demand has collapsed as precedent has been established for the personhood of unborns. Glad that is settled.

 

[SSDD]

And there you have it. You begin by making the blanket statement that the right to life is paramount. But when it starts to become evident that this position takes you places you do not wish to go, you start to modify that position. Modify and modify until it just takes you where you want to go. Moral convenience.

I see that even though you claimed that you could present a sitiuation in which one person's dependence upon another would be analogous to the relationship between mother and child. Obviously, you can't so you begin the song and dance.

It is you who must modify and modify. You claim that you can present one sort of situation and when it becomes evidence that you can't, then you begin modifying. My statement remains the same as when we first started. It is you who can't deliver on what you claimed to be "no problem".

I am still asking for you to describe a situation in which through no actions of your own, you might find yourself connected to me and dependent upon my bodily systems for your survial. Either you can do that, or you can't. If you can't then you have no apt analogy to support your argument.

That is the problem with the "pro-life" movement. You're not pro-life.

I never said that I was pro life. In fact, I'm not. I am anti abortion on demand.

 

[SSDD]

It's cherry picking and semantics to you because the definition disagrees with you.

No, it is cherry picking and semantics because that is what it is.

A fetus is not a child, no matter how much you stomp your feet and declare otherwise.

Your own dictionary.com disagrees with you.

child
noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth
2. a son or daughter
3. A baby or infant
4. a human fetus.

 

[SSDD]

Legally abortion is not murder, abortion is legal. Now what about who has to pay for it? After all a porterhouse steak is legal, I have a right to chow down on a porterhouse steak, do you have the obligation to pay for it.

Legally? That is about as weak an argument as semantics. There was a time when legally you could own another human being in this country. Was the law correct in its assumption that it was fine to own blacks because they were something less than human beings?

Lots of things have been legal due to corruption or shortcomings in the law and judicial system. Simply saying "it
s legal" is hardly a rational argument. If you can't justify the legal decisions that have been made, then you may as well say "just because" as "it's legal"

 

[PratchettFan]

And there you have it. You begin by making the blanket statement that the right to life is paramount. But when it starts to become evident that this position takes you places you do not wish to go, you start to modify that position. Modify and modify until it just takes you where you want to go. Moral convenience.

I see that even though you claimed that you could present a sitiuation in which one person's dependence upon another would be analogous to the relationship between mother and child. Obviously, you can't so you begin the song and dance.

It is you who must modify and modify. You claim that you can present one sort of situation and when it becomes evidence that you can't, then you begin modifying. My statement remains the same as when we first started. It is you who can't deliver on what you claimed to be "no problem".

I am still asking for you to describe a situation in which through no actions of your own, you might find yourself connected to me and dependent upon my bodily systems for your survial. Either you can do that, or you can't. If you can't then you have no apt analogy to support your argument.

I have been perfectly consistent. Either the right to life supercedes the right to personal sovereignty or it does not. I hold that it does not and I do not change the position for the sake of convenience. You hold that it does, but only when you want it to. If it is not convenient for you, then it doesn't.

As to "order of precedence", you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Katzndogz]

No matter how you feel about abortion, abortion is legal. If it is a sin, it is a sin personal to the person having or participating in the abortion. Examine who gets abortions. While conservatives might be forced to get an abortion when absolutely necessary and all other options are foreclosed, liberals get them as a matter of convenience. Estimates are that 70% of all black pregnancies end in abortion. The hispanic use of abortion is growing. Liberals are the self-proclaimed enemies of conservative values. It makes some sense that liberals should voluntarily reduce their numbers by abortion unimpeded. Conservatives should be having all the babies not liberals. Liberals should just pay for them. That's all. Just pay for them. Then they can kill themselves off to their heart's content.

 

[AmyNation]

No matter how you feel about abortion, abortion is legal. If it is a sin, it is a sin personal to the person having or participating in the abortion. Examine who gets abortions. While conservatives might be forced to get an abortion when absolutely necessary and all other options are foreclosed, liberals get them as a matter of convenience. Estimates are that 70% of all black pregnancies end in abortion. The hispanic use of abortion is growing. Liberals are the self-proclaimed enemies of conservative values. It makes some sense that liberals should voluntarily reduce their numbers by abortion unimpeded. Conservatives should be having all the babies not liberals. Liberals should just pay for them. That's all. Just pay for them. Then they can kill themselves off to their heart's content.

^^^

Abortions ok cuz black folk get them!

Stay classy Katz.

 

[George Costanza]

While conservatives might be forced to get an abortion when absolutely necessary and all other options are foreclosed, liberals get them as a matter of convenience.

Estimates are that 70% of all black pregnancies end in abortion. The hispanic use of abortion is growing.

All right, people, everyone rise, throw back your white hoods, and let's all join in:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3qnLXmJDM]Tom Lehrer - I Wanna Go Back to Dixie - YouTube[/ame]

Liberals are the self-proclaimed enemies of conservative values.

First, we need to know just exactly what you mean by "conservative valules." If this post is typical . . .

It makes some sense that liberals should voluntarily reduce their numbers by abortion unimpeded. Conservatives should be having all the babies not liberals. Liberals should just pay for them. That's all. Just pay for them. Then they can kill themselves off to their heart's content.

I'm speechless. I am totally without speech.

 

[Father Time]

Where is this legal precedent that says fetuses are covered?

People reside in prison today having been convicted of homicide in the deaths of unborns. One can only be convicted of homicide if one has killed a person.

In Roe, the court said:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

No case law existed at the time establishing the personhood of unborns. The same is not true today. If you are unable to look up specific cases, just ask and I will be happy to provide some although 1 is all that is necessary to establish the suggestion of personhood.

When they look for precedent they either look at other Supreme Court cases or the Constitution. Which is why you can't just overturn a court case with a law passed by Congress.

The whole thing seems kind of iffy.

 

[Father Time]

So you think dictionary.com has a hidden liberal agenda and that they're secretly pro-abortion.



I suppose you think conservapedia is a viable source as well.

The issue wasn't the dictionary, it was the person cherry picking definitions that support her argument and pretending that the remaining defintions do not exist...and further ignoring what legal dictionaries say altogether in favor of a single entry from dictionary.com when that same dictionary defined child as a human fetus.

Arguing not only semantics, but cherry picked semantics is the most insubstantial form of argument.

My mistake in assuming she was quoting the whole definition.

 

[PratchettFan]

Legally abortion is not murder, abortion is legal. Now what about who has to pay for it? After all a porterhouse steak is legal, I have a right to chow down on a porterhouse steak, do you have the obligation to pay for it.

Legally? That is about as weak an argument as semantics. There was a time when legally you could own another human being in this country. Was the law correct in its assumption that it was fine to own blacks because they were something less than human beings?

Lots of things have been legal due to corruption or shortcomings in the law and judicial system. Simply saying "it
s legal" is hardly a rational argument. If you can't justify the legal decisions that have been made, then you may as well say "just because" as "it's legal"

And back comes your desire for convenience. You are the one who said, "I stick to the law." But when the law is not in your favor it is suddenly a weak argument. Amazing.

So, we are now not talking about law but about morality. Any position which does no support a persons right to the control of their own body is immoral. Any moral position which changes to fit a desired conclusion is hypocritical.

Now, which way do you want to go, or do I just save time and assume it is whatever way fits your desires at the time? Because you really don't have a legal, philosophical or moral position. You just have the way you want things to be and you want that imposed upon everyone. I expect you would resent it if anyone were to do that to you.