Rape does not justify abortion

[NYcarbineer]

I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.

A Supreme Court decision is Constitutional law, and as such is part of the Constitution.

 

[syrenn]

Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?

What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.

We both know that is not true.

Alright... say i was raped and wanted an abortion.... are you going to stop me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.

Abortion helps people get born? How?

the people who are anti-choice are opposed to in vitro.... they call the frozen embryos 'snowflake babies'... as such, in vitro would be illegal under your personhood laws.

That's funny.

I oppose abortion, I don't oppose in vitro fertilization. Want to try that one again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.

The Constitution is nothing more or less than what the Supreme Court decides it is, in the event a constitutional issue is put before the Court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.

Constitutional law once established that a man was not free simply because he lived in a place where slavery is illegal. You are going to have to do better in your defense of abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At the very minimum, even if for sake of argument you set aside the issue of the right of a woman to have an abortion,

she certainly has the right NOT TO BE FORCIBLY IMPREGNATED.

When such a violation of that right occurs, it is the duty of the law in the interests of justice to provide the best remedy that it can,

and the most appropriate and just remedy in that case is to allow the woman the option to have an abortion.

There is no course of action - in that circumstance - more just than that.

Does a woman have a right not to be raped?

Yes.

Does a woman have a right to kill her rapist?

No.

Is killing ever a remedy for anything?

No.

I suggest you try again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Edit

Edit

Nope, that is not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.

A Supreme Court decision is Constitutional law, and as such is part of the Constitution.

Why do people keep spouting such ignorance? Constitutional law is not part of the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.

We both know that is not true.

Alright... say i was raped and wanted an abortion.... are you going to stop me?

Nope.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.

The Constitution is nothing more or less than what the Supreme Court decides it is, in the event a constitutional issue is put before the Court.

Wrong again.

 

[Vidi]

This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.

Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.

They are unrelated.

By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?

They are very related.

You stated:

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".

So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.

If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.

 

[courseofhistory]

Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.

They are unrelated.

By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?

They are very related.

You stated:

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".

So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.

If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.

Oh, don't be so logical and sensible! Everyone has a right to life but to hell with you after you're born! /sarcasm off.

Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12​

Florida Obama 49 Romney 46
Ohio 50 44
Virginia 50 45
Colorado 49 46
Nevada 49 45
Wisconsin 50 45
MI 44 47
PA 48 42​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.

They are unrelated.

By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?

They are very related.

You stated:

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".

So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.

If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.

A right to life does not imply a right to health care because health care is a service.

 

[Amelia]

A person does not exist till birth.

A statement of belief, not fact.

Age is measured from birth not conception.

Here, that is true. It is not necessarily true everywhere. But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.

Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.

Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?

Yikes. Picture that. A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Trapped. Not really living but unable to die. Unable to pass to the next life.

... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A statement of belief, not fact.



Here, that is true. It is not necessarily true everywhere. But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.

Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.

Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?

Yikes. Picture that. A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Trapped. Not really living but unable to die. Unable to pass to the next life.

... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul

People do not have souls, people are souls.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.

Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?

Yikes. Picture that. A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Trapped. Not really living but unable to die. Unable to pass to the next life.

... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul

People do not have souls, people are souls.

Prove it...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yikes. Picture that. A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Trapped. Not really living but unable to die. Unable to pass to the next life.

... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul

People do not have souls, people are souls.

Prove it...

Do you honestly think I can't?

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.

If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.

 

[oldernwiser]

People do not have souls, people are souls.

Prove it...

Do you honestly think I can't?

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.

If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.

Almost... science contends that we evolved from primordial ooze, but science is a little less than convinced about who did the first breathing and a LOT less convinced about the existence of a soul.

edit:
I need to cut the late night sessions here.
Since I can't remove the comment, let me say that I saw your point just as I pressed the send button.

 

[Dr Grump]

People do not have souls, people are souls.

Prove it...

Do you honestly think I can't?

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.

If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.

Your opinion doesn't translate into facts. Nor does your faith...

 

[The Rabbi]

So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.

If that were the case maybe she could kill her ex-husband too.