Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[CivilLiberty]

....since the 10th Amendment states that the rights not specifically outlined in the Constitution are up to the States to grant or deny.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment states that no person can have their life, liberty or property taken from them without due process of law. If you believe that the fetus is a person (as I do), then logically abortion is unconstitutional, since it denies the baby's right to life without due process of law.
.

Interesting you bring up the 14th amendment, because:


1) The 14th amendment has been shown to REDUCE the effect of the 9th and 10th, reducing federalism by giving more power to the federal government and removing some from states.

2) The 14th amendment defines a person as one who "is born". therefore an unborn is NOT a person by definition.


Regards,


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

That's a specious analogy. A hole in my aorta has absolutely no correlation with an embryo.

A little lump of flesh, the size of a dime, cannot be said to have "more rights" than the woman who is carrying it. The Supreme court has held that viability is the law, and a dime sized piece of flesh does not fall under "viability".



Regards,


Andy

A human the size of a dime would have the SAME rights as the other human. Size is not a requirement for rights that are given by the creator. Human life is not determined by size, nor are their rights. Saying because somebody is small or not yet intelligent certainly doesn't tell me that their rights should be suspended or superceded by the rights of another.

 

[no1tovote4]

Interesting you bring up the 14th amendment, because:


1) The 14th amendment has been shown to REDUCE the effect of the 9th and 10th, reducing federalism by giving more power to the federal government and removing some from states.

2) The 14th amendment defines a person as one who "is born". therefore an unborn is NOT a person by definition.


Regards,


Andy

It doesn't define a person as that of being born, it defines a citizen as being born in the US. There is a HUGE difference. This amendment does not define "personhood" at all. The unborn person is not yet a Citizen, but no less a person by the definition in the 14th Amendment.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, defined as a person born here is a citizen the Amendment goes on to say that if you are in the jurisdiction you still have the same rights and does not define it by Citizenship. This is the same Amendment people site when getting welfare as an undocumented alien.

If we went by your definition anybody not born in the US would not be a "person" either.

 

[KarlMarx]

Ya know .... it's really odd.....

A few weeks ago, libs were soiling their pants over supposed "torture" at Abu Ghraib prison. Many of the libs were going on and on how we should be extending rights and protections to those prisoners as if they were US citizens protected by the US Bill of Rights, even though we are under no obligation to do so.

Now we're talking about infants (who are not born) and all of the sudden, these concerns about who is a citizen and who isn't vanish into thin air!

Do a bunch of thugs and hoodlums really mean that much more to you libs than an infant? Seriously ..... you split hairs in order to protect a woman's right to "chose" (i.e. commit infanticide) by arguing over the size of the fetus and yet are willing to extend the broadest protections to a bunch of thugs and murderers, many of whom probably make Charles Manson look like the Pope (oh yeah, bad analogy, to some libs, the Pope isn't much better than Charles Manson.... sorry).

Whose side are you on, anyway? Christ, guy, we're talking about a freaking kid that can't defend itself or speak for itself not an Islamoterrorist.

 

[Gem]

No, no. Perhaps Andy is on to something here. We should be allowed to kill non-citizens at our whim. I feel that terrorists are making MY LIFE and MY BODY uncomfortable...I should be able to kill them.

 

[Bonnie]

Ya know .... it's really odd.....

A few weeks ago, libs were soiling their pants over supposed "torture" at Abu Ghraib prison. Many of the libs were going on and on how we should be extending rights and protections to those prisoners as if they were US citizens protected by the US Bill of Rights, even though we are under no obligation to do so.

Now we're talking about infants (who are not born) and all of the sudden, these concerns about who is a citizen and who isn't vanish into thin air!

Do a bunch of thugs and hoodlums really mean that much more to you libs than an infant? Seriously ..... you split hairs in order to protect a woman's right to "chose" (i.e. commit infanticide) by arguing over the size of the fetus and yet are willing to extend the broadest protections to a bunch of thugs and murderers, many of whom probably make Charles Manson look like the Pope (oh yeah, bad analogy, to some libs, the Pope isn't much better than Charles Manson.... sorry).

Whose side are you on, anyway? Christ, guy, we're talking about a freaking kid that can't defend itself or speak for itself not an Islamoterrorist.

Yes that's that Liberal selective morality AGAIN!!!!!

 

[KarlMarx]

No, no. Perhaps Andy is on to something here. We should be allowed to kill non-citizens at our whim. I feel that terrorists are making MY LIFE and MY BODY uncomfortable...I should be able to kill them.

Can we extend that right to apply to matrimonial attorneys, too? I can think a few I'd like to whack!

 

[Bonnie]

So by logical interpretation if a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes then I can take my arm and stab anyone that pisses me off.............After all my arm is attached to my body is it not???? And if it's my desire then no one can tell me what to do with that arm YES???

 

[CivilLiberty]

So by logical interpretation if a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes then I can take my arm and stab anyone that pisses me off.............After all my arm is attached to my body is it not???? And if it's my desire then no one can tell me what to do with that arm YES???

Bonnie, I have to say that that is an absurd argument, and not even a reduct ad absurdum.

At question is at what point does fetus have rights that EXCEED the rights of the woman, not what you can do with your arm.


Now then, let's look at your argument. Can you take your arm and stab someone? because they "piss you off"? No. Because they threaten you with harm? Yes. Are they going to rob you of money? Yes, then stab them and run.

Under these circumstances, I'm sure you'll agree that you can use your arm to stab them. Under these circumstances, Your rights as a woman EXCEED the rights of this other person.


It's not if a fetus has "any" rights, it is at what point does a fetus have rights that exceed or overrule the rights of the woman.

A dime sized unviable embryo of insignificant development cannot be construed to have rights that exceed the rights of the woman in her health and life.



Regards,


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

Bonnie, I have to say that that is an absurd argument, and not even a reduct ad absurdum.

At question is at what point does fetus have rights that EXCEED the rights of the woman, not what you can do with your arm.


Now then, let's look at your argument. Can you take your arm and stab someone? because they "piss you off"? No. Because they threaten you with harm? Yes. Are they going to rob you of money? Yes, then stab them and run.

Under these circumstances, I'm sure you'll agree that you can use your arm to stab them. Under these circumstances, Your rights as a woman EXCEED the rights of this other person.


It's not if a fetus has "any" rights, it is at what point does a fetus have rights that exceed or overrule the rights of the woman.

A dime sized unviable embryo of insignificant development cannot be construed to have rights that exceed the rights of the woman in her health and life.



Regards,


Andy

I don't believe that anybody says that the child's right EXCEEDS the right of the woman's. They just assert that they have the same rights to life as anybody else living. The right to privacy does not supercede the right to life and therefore the abortion could not be legal except in cases of self-defense.

And once again, embryo is just another stage of human development and most certainly is alive. Saying that they are not far enough developed is an opinion and certainly one not shared by everybody.

So we have shown that the 14th Amendment doesn't define a "person" as somebody born but defines citizenship as somebody that was born here. It is a geological definition. It also says that no person can be deprived of their rights that are in the jurisdiction of the US so even people that are not Citizens are afforded the same rights. This embryo or living human would have the same right to life as the mother. Therefore the mother's right to privacy could not supercede the right of the embryo to live. While the child will not be a Citizen until they are born they would still be a person as the Amendment does not define Personhood at all.

One argument in the toilet...(splish)

And you keep mentioning the size of the human life as if that made any difference. We have already shown that the right to life has nothing to do with the stage of development of their intelligence or of their size.

Argument two in the toilet.... (splash)

Simply stating this same absurdity over and over again doesn't give it a better status, it is still a lost argument.

Therefore an abortion in the self-defense of the woman would be right as it is self-defense, but an abortion for expediency would not.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Therefore the mother's right to privacy could not supercede the right of the embryo to live.

It's not just privacy. The mother's right to her health, life, and the quality thereof supercedes the right of an unconscious, unsentient, undeveloped, miniscule embryo.


Regards,


Andy

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, I have to say that that is an absurd argument, and not even a reduct ad absurdum.

At question is at what point does fetus have rights that EXCEED the rights of the woman, not what you can do with your arm.


Now then, let's look at your argument. Can you take your arm and stab someone? because they "piss you off"? No. Because they threaten you with harm? Yes. Are they going to rob you of money? Yes, then stab them and run.

Under these circumstances, I'm sure you'll agree that you can use your arm to stab them. Under these circumstances, Your rights as a woman EXCEED the rights of this other person.


It's not if a fetus has "any" rights, it is at what point does a fetus have rights that exceed or overrule the rights of the woman.

A dime sized unviable embryo of insignificant development cannot be construed to have rights that exceed the rights of the woman in her health and life.



Regards,


Andy

Well then how did abortion become something that can be performed at any time for any reason?

and you still have not addressed what factors specifically make an baby a viable citizen..........How does size come into the argument??? And who decides this???

 

[no1tovote4]

It's not just privacy. The mother's right to her health, life, and the quality thereof supercedes the right of an unconscious, unsentient, undeveloped, miniscule embryo.


Regards,


Andy

I disagree. The right to life of any human supercedes the right of expediency in every case.

Often there are choices that you make in life that take from you each of those things. Quality of life is not a right, but life itself is.

And the health argument has already been ceded by me in earlier posts. If the life of the mother is in danger it is her right to protect her life.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Well then how did abortion become something that can be performed at any time for any reason?

Abortion CANNOT be performed at any time for any reason.

The Supreme court ruled that VIABILITY is the restrictive terminology, and state may and do ban abortion at viability as allowed per Roe.

and you still have not addressed what factors specifically make an baby a viable citizen..........How does size come into the argument??? And who decides this???

The Supreme Court outlined the factors that define viability in Roe.

As far as size - of course size is a factor, and it's useful in the parallels we can see for other life. Simply having human DNA is not enough to "demand rights". A cancerous tumor has human DNA. Does it have rights?


Regards,

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

I disagree. The right to life of any human supercedes the right of expediency in every case.

expediency is not the issue here.

Often there are choices that you make in life that take from you each of those things. Quality of life is not a right, but life itself is.

No, a person has a right to maintain their quality of life as well.

And the health argument has already been ceded by me in earlier posts. If the life of the mother is in danger it is her right to protect her life.

Health: When a woman carries a child full term, even if healthy, she will still have visible, physical and internal damage to her body. Carrying a child is hard on a woman's body. So hard that still today, 585,000 women die each year world wide in child birth.

Why should a woman be forced to take that chance if she does not want to?



Regards,



Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

No, a person has a right to maintain their quality of life as well.




Health: When a woman carries a child full term, even if healthy, she will still have visible, physical and internal damage to her body. Carrying a child is hard on a woman's body. So hard that still today, 585,000 women die each year world wide in child birth.

Why should a woman be forced to take that chance if she does not want to?



Regards,



Andy

Which is why I advocated removing the fetus from the womb with the aim of keeping it alive. Creating a new area of Medical Science that can at some point actually give reproductive freedom allowing women to choose whether to carry children or not as they decide while still having healthy babies after a term outside the womb. This would give an actual choice to women and allow for the rights of the developing human life as well. Over time we would be successful in keeping these children alive to live what may be productive lives rather than reducing them to the status of garbage.

Why is it that we advocate killing children in order to create this particular freedom?

Thus we are removing from human life the status of human, labelling it as fetus as if that were different than labelling another part of life as infant. Calling human life insignificant at any level is appalling to me.

Killing children should not be the goal, the goal should be actual choice and reproductive freedom rather than either kill it or keep it.

 

[no1tovote4]

No, a person has a right to maintain their quality of life as well.
Andy

They have a right to pursue that but not at the expense of the rights of others. In this case reducing a human life to garbage in sacrifice to that right.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Which is why I advocated removing the fetus from the womb with the aim of keeping it alive. Creating a new area of Medical Science that can at some point actually give reproductive freedom allowing women to choose whether to carry children or not as they decide while still having healthy babies after a term outside the womb.

I agree with this as an option in principal, though it would clearly be very costly - who would shoulder the costs?

Why is it that we advocate killing children in order to create this particular freedom?

Embryos are not children.

Thus we are removing from human life the status of human, labelling it as fetus as if that were different than labelling another part of life as infant. Calling human life insignificant at any level is appalling to me.

What about the first first two weeks, when it's nothing more than a lump of completely undifferentiated cells? Surely you can't think that a lump of completely undifferentiated cells is somehow a human being?



Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree with this as an option in principal, though it would clearly be very costly - who would shoulder the costs?



Embryos are not children.

Only in the way that Infants are not children. Fetus is simply one label for a different stage of human life. I have explained this before. Zygote, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Child, Pre-Teen, Teenager, Adult, Geriatric - All life forms go through these changes if development (except plants their stages are labelled differently). To say that somebody is less important because of what stage of life they are in I think is simply wrong.

What about the first first two weeks, when it's nothing more than a lump of completely undifferentiated cells? Surely you can't think that a lump of completely undifferentiated cells is somehow a human being?

Andy

Yes, I can.

Human life is still human life at whatever stage of development in which we find it. To simply say that at this point they are tiny and undifferentiated doesn't change the fact that it is a human life.

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree with this as an option in principal, though it would clearly be very costly - who would shoulder the costs?

I noticed that I forgot to answer this one in my haste to defend human life.

The same way that we fund many other research areas. Through donations and the public funds available to those other areas of research. I cannot see why this would be the end of the idea. Even if it started small at least we would have a beginning.