When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[Coyote]

A person begins at birth.

Yet, many have already been charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

Huh.

Imagine that.

Under pretty narrowly circumstances however.

I have to ask.

Are there any other situations where you would find it acceptable for our laws to narrowly define a human being as a "person" in one sat of circumstances. . . But deny they are a person in other circumstances?

Yes.

A brain dead person on life support.

So, a brain dead person can not be raped? Molested? Murdered?

Good point.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

Funny that the Supreme Courts justices didn't indicate that when they offered the opinion that I quote in my signature line. . .

Wonder why?!?

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

 

[Coyote]

I think personhood has always been conferred at birth.

So you think our personhood is "conferred" to us by our government?

Can you. Ite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government that power?

It's not government.

It's human cultures.

Our legal dictionaries (I think rightly) define "persons" as "a human being."

Why do you suppose the legal dictionary does not say anything about a human beings personhood being "conferred" to them by government or human cultures?

If so, then it IS the government conferring personhood because the law and government are inseperable.

 

[Coyote]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

And how do you think that would work - if conception marked full personhood in the law?

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

It is, but it is legally defined as a seperate crime.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

No idea what more you are looking for with that question. The justices made it clear enough for me in the quote in my sig.

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

It is, but it is legally defined as a seperate crime.

Can you think of anyone who would support an exception for cases of one but not the other?

If not, then I ask again... why the distinction?

 

[Coyote]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

It is, but it is legally defined as a seperate crime.

Can you think of anyone who would support an exception for cases of one but not the other?

If not, then I ask again... why the distinction?

And I repeat, again, the distinction is made because they are listed as two seperate categories.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think personhood has always been conferred at birth.

So you think our personhood is "conferred" to us by our government?

Can you. Ite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government that power?

It's not government.

It's human cultures.

Our legal dictionaries (I think rightly) define "persons" as "a human being."

Why do you suppose the legal dictionary does not say anything about a human beings personhood being "conferred" to them by government or human cultures?

If so, then it IS the government conferring personhood because the law and government are inseperable.

What then is the difference between a government recognizing personhood and the government "conferring" it?

 

[Chuz Life]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

It is, but it is legally defined as a seperate crime.

Can you think of anyone who would support an exception for cases of one but not the other?

If not, then I ask again... why the distinction?

And I repeat, again, the distinction is made because they are listed as two seperate categories.

Do you know someone, anyone, who supports an exception is cases of one but not the other?

 

[Coyote]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

 

[Coyote]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

I'm just thinking what that would mean to a pregnant woman from conception on if it had equal rights as a person to her - and if you define it as a person legally - you can not make exceptions for rape or incest.

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

It is, but it is legally defined as a seperate crime.

Can you think of anyone who would support an exception for cases of one but not the other?

If not, then I ask again... why the distinction?

1. I don't personally know of anyone.
2. They are categorized as two distinct and seperate crimes with different penalties.

Why is this a problem for you?

 

[Chuz Life]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictate who is and who is not a "person"

 

[Coyote]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictatebwho is and who is not a "person"

Who gives us our laws?

 

[Chuz Life]

The Emotions of Abortion Opposition

I'll take that bet.

Also, why do you use rape and incest separately? Why do you make a distinction between them?

Because they are legally two different crimes (by incest, I mean child abuse).

How is incest with a child is not also a rape?

It is, but it is legally defined as a seperate crime.

Can you think of anyone who would support an exception for cases of one but not the other?

If not, then I ask again... why the distinction?

1. I don't personally know of anyone.
2. They are categorized as two distinct and seperate crimes with different penalties.

Why is this a problem for you?

Does it have to be a problem for me to notice that it's ridiculous to think the distinction needs to be made in these sorts of exchanges?

 

[Chuz Life]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictatebwho is and who is not a "person"

Who gives us our laws?

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

 

[Coyote]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictatebwho is and who is not a "person"

Who gives us our laws?

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

The Constitution says nothing about it. Period. It only mentions persons.

 

[Chuz Life]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictatebwho is and who is not a "person"

Who gives us our laws?

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

The Constitution says nothing about it. Period. It only mentions persons.

It says ALL persons.

Doesn't it.

Would you consider the use of "all persons" to be an inclusive or an exclusive statement?

 

[Coyote]

In this case, they are the same.

The government confers it. In the process they recognize it.

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictatebwho is and who is not a "person"

Who gives us our laws?

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

The Constitution says nothing about it. Period. It only mentions persons.

It says ALL persons.

Doesn't it.

Would you consider the use of "all persons" to be an inclusive or an exclusive statement?

And who defined persons in 1776?

What were "persons"?

 

[Chuz Life]

Our government has only the power and the authority that we "the people" give it via the Constitution.

Please cite the exact language of the Constitution that gives our government the authority to dictatebwho is and who is not a "person"

Who gives us our laws?

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

The Constitution says nothing about it. Period. It only mentions persons.

It says ALL persons.

Doesn't it.

Would you consider the use of "all persons" to be an inclusive or an exclusive statement?

And who defined persons in 1776?

What were "persons"?

According to the declaration of independence, all persons are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights... The lawmakers of that time apparently thought that only meant "white men."

We're they right?

Were they infallible?

 

[Coyote]

Who gives us our laws?

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

The Constitution says nothing about it. Period. It only mentions persons.

It says ALL persons.

Doesn't it.

Would you consider the use of "all persons" to be an inclusive or an exclusive statement?

And who defined persons in 1776?

What were "persons"?

According to the declaration of independence, all persons are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights... The lawmakers of that time apparently thought that only meant "white men."

We're they right?

Were they infallible?

Exactly.

So who determines personhood?

 

[Chuz Life]

Lawmakers.

Now answer mine.

The Constitution says nothing about it. Period. It only mentions persons.

It says ALL persons.

Doesn't it.

Would you consider the use of "all persons" to be an inclusive or an exclusive statement?

And who defined persons in 1776?

What were "persons"?

According to the declaration of independence, all persons are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights... The lawmakers of that time apparently thought that only meant "white men."

We're they right?

Were they infallible?

Exactly.

So who determines personhood?

Self

Evident.