When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[Coyote]

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.

Cop.

Out.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Cop.

Out.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Cop.

Out.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

So who determines personhood?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Cop.

Out.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

So who determines personhood?

I just answered that.

 

[Coyote]

Here's what I don't understand...it comes down to an internally consistent argument. Kind of the same argument I see with the death penalty, but I'll skip that for now.

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest. You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

 

[Coyote]

Exactly.

So who determines personhood?

Self

Evident.

Cop.

Out.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

So who determines personhood?

I just answered that.

"self evident" is not an answer.

 

[Chuz Life]

Self

Evident.

Cop.

Out.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

So who determines personhood?

I just answered that.

"self evident" is not an answer.

So said the king (George) prior to the revolutionary war. . .

Which he lost.

 

[Coyote]

Cop.

Out.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

So who determines personhood?

I just answered that.

"self evident" is not an answer.

So said the king (George) prior to the revolutionary war. . .

Which he lost.

Again. Non answer.

 

[Chuz Life]

Here's what I don't understand...it comes down to an internally consistent argument. Kind of the same argument I see with the death penalty, but I'll skip that for now.

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest. You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

How is it anything but self evident that the child of a person would also be a person?

Is this not the basis for our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

So who determines personhood?

I just answered that.

"self evident" is not an answer.

So said the king (George) prior to the revolutionary war. . .

Which he lost.

Again. Non answer.

Opinion noted.

 

[Coyote]

Here's what I don't understand...it comes down to an internally consistent argument. Kind of the same argument I see with the death penalty, but I'll skip that for now.

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest. You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

I am curious how you resolve this Chuz because if an unborn child at any point of existence has full rights - I see problems.

 

[Chuz Life]

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

And to everyone else's rights as well.

Correct.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest.

Wanna bet?

You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

Right. . . So, in your opinion, if personhood begins at conception, any pregnant woman loses her right to defend herself (self defense) as soon as conception takes place.

Got it.

 

[Coyote]

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

And to everyone else's rights as well.

Correct.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest.

Wanna bet?

How?

Let me point out - the baby had no choice in it's conception.

You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

Right. . . So, in your opinion, if personhood begins at conception, any pregnant woman loses her right to defend herself (self defense) as soon as conception takes place.

Got it.

[/QUOTE]

Umh no. You don't "get it".

As I said, you can probably make an exception for LIFE (ie self defense).

 

[Chuz Life]

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

And to everyone else's rights as well.

Correct.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest.

Wanna bet?

How?

Let me point out - the baby had no choice in it's conception.

You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

Right. . . So, in your opinion, if personhood begins at conception, any pregnant woman loses her right to defend herself (self defense) as soon as conception takes place.

Got it.

Umh no. You don't "get it".

As I said, you can probably make an exception for LIFE (ie self defense).[/QUOTE]

Let me make this short for you because I have burned enough time on this already.

ALL pregnancies pose a risk to the woman's life.

Lawmakers will easily recognize and identify the difference between a risk to a persons life that they assumed themself and a risk that was forced upon them in a criminal act.

 

[Coyote]

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

And to everyone else's rights as well.

Correct.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest.

Wanna bet?

How?

Let me point out - the baby had no choice in it's conception.

You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

Right. . . So, in your opinion, if personhood begins at conception, any pregnant woman loses her right to defend herself (self defense) as soon as conception takes place.

Got it.

Umh no. You don't "get it".

As I said, you can probably make an exception for LIFE (ie self defense).

Let me make this short for you because I have burned enough time on this already.

ALL pregnancies pose a risk to the woman's life.

Lawmakers will easily recognize and identify the difference between a risk to a persons life that they assumed themself and a risk that was forced upon them.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

When it comes to life of persons - unless it's life vs life (ie self defense) - there can be no exception. The unborn child had no choice in the matter and his rights are being removed with no legal process.

 

[Chuz Life]

If an unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a "person" - then it's rights are equal to the mother's.

And to everyone else's rights as well.

Correct.

That means you can not make an exception for rape or incest.

Wanna bet?

How?

Let me point out - the baby had no choice in it's conception.

You probably can not make an exception for "health" of the mother. The only legal exception MIGHT be for the life of the mother but even then you are pitting two legally equal lives against each other.

Right. . . So, in your opinion, if personhood begins at conception, any pregnant woman loses her right to defend herself (self defense) as soon as conception takes place.

Got it.

Umh no. You don't "get it".

As I said, you can probably make an exception for LIFE (ie self defense).

Let me make this short for you because I have burned enough time on this already.

ALL pregnancies pose a risk to the woman's life.

Lawmakers will easily recognize and identify the difference between a risk to a persons life that they assumed themself and a risk that was forced upon them.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

When it comes to life of persons - unless it's life vs life (ie self defense) - there can be no exception. The unborn child had no choice in the matter and his rights are being removed with no legal process.

Two situations drawn for comparison to illustrate what I thought would be an obvious point.

1. You assume as risk that results in, or you may even deliberately connect your body to the body of another person in such a way that they will die if you break that connection before the time period of about nine months.

2. You are attacked and assaulted, raped... then forcibly, your body is connected to the body of another person in the exact same way as example number one.

Is it your contention that your responsibility for the 'attached' person's Should be exactly the same in both situations?

Yes or no.

 

[Coyote]

Two situations drawn for comparison to illustrate what I thought would be an obvious point.

1. You assume as risk that results in, or you may even deliberately connect your body to the body of another person in such a way that they will die if you break that connection before the time period of about nine months.

How is that relevant? No one has sex assuming they'll get pregnant unless that was the intention - CHOICE of sex doesn't equal CHOICE of pregnancy.

2. You are attacked and assaulted, raped... then forcibly, your body is connected to the body of another person in the exact same way as example number one.

And that is the babie's fault how? Why should he/she be killed because of circumstances he had no say over?

Is it your contention that your responsibility for the 'attached' person's Should be exactly the same in both situations?

Yes or no.

NO.

But - what does that matter? You are talking about an innocent life - a person, in your own defintion - that had no say over the circumstances of his conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two situations drawn for comparison to illustrate what I thought would be an obvious point.

1. You assume as risk that results in, or you may even deliberately connect your body to the body of another INNOCENT person in such a way that they will die if you break that connection before the time period of about nine months.

How is that relevant? No one has sex assuming they'll get pregnant unless that was the intention - CHOICE of sex doesn't equal CHOICE of pregnancy.

No one gets drunk thinking they will get busted with a dui... The legal precedent is set. Assumption of risks equals assumption of responsibility.

2. You are attacked and assaulted, raped... then forcibly, your body is connected to the body of another INNOCENT person in the exact same way as example number one.

And that is the babie's fault how? Why should he/she be killed because of circumstances he had no say over?

NO one said they SHOULD be killed.

Did they.

Is it your contention that your responsibility for the 'attached' person's Should be exactly the same in both situations?

Yes or no.

NO.

Why not?

But - what does that matter? You are talking about an innocent life - a person, in your own defintion - that had no say over the circumstances of his conception.

You answered NO.

Explain why and you will likely answer that question for yourself.

 

[Mudda]

It is all a matter of rights and who's rights a paramount at any given time. At no time should an unborn child's rights exceed the mothers right to live or retain her health unless she chooses.

What "right" does an unborn child have to another persons body?

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

Would you or would you not have a right to maintain the connection, to keep yourself alive?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

No. Now answer my question: how would you enforce your sig law?

I already answered your question. Same way as all other rights are already being enforced today.

Good to know that you don't think you would have a right to the use of my body.... if I were to attach you in such a way that you will DIE if the connection was broken!

Hope you can appreciate how lawyers and judges would likely disagree with you on that, never the less.

It's a stupid premise that two adults would be tied together like that. Got anything realistic?

So are you saying that a woman who has an abortion under your sig law would be charged with murder?

 

[Coyote]

Two situations drawn for comparison to illustrate what I thought would be an obvious point.

1. You assume as risk that results in, or you may even deliberately connect your body to the body of another INNOCENT person in such a way that they will die if you break that connection before the time period of about nine months.

How is that relevant? No one has sex assuming they'll get pregnant unless that was the intention - CHOICE of sex doesn't equal CHOICE of pregnancy.

No one gets drunk thinking they will get busted with a dui... The legal precedent is set. Assumption of risks equals assumption of responsibility.

2. You are attacked and assaulted, raped... then forcibly, your body is connected to the body of another INNOCENT person in the exact same way as example number one.

And that is the babie's fault how? Why should he/she be killed because of circumstances he had no say over?

NO one said they SHOULD be killed.

Did they.

Is it your contention that your responsibility for the 'attached' person's Should be exactly the same in both situations?

Yes or no.

NO.

Why not?

But - what does that matter? You are talking about an innocent life - a person, in your own defintion - that had no say over the circumstances of his conception.

You answered NO.

Explain why and you will likely answer that question for yourself.

If an unborn child is a person from conception you can not argue it's any less of a person or has fewer rights under some circumstances. You can not make an exception for anything but self defense if the mothers life is in danger. Yet you have said you support exceptions for rape and incest. You argue from a standpoint of Constitutional rights, that is not going to allow for those exceptions.

Removing that body will kill it, without due process or any crime having been committed by it.

 

[Chuz Life]

If an unborn child is a person from conception you can not argue it's any less of a person or has fewer rights under some circumstances.

There is no need to do that.

You can not make an exception for anything but self defense if the mothers life is in danger. Yet you have said you support exceptions for rape and incest.

Again, all pregnancies present a threat to a woman's life. Did you miss that?

Do you really think lawmakers will have a hard time seeing the differences between na risk like that which is "assumed" in a consensual act and one which is forced on an individual in a criminal act?

You argue from a standpoint of Constitutional rights, that is not going to allow for those exceptions.

Removing that body will kill it, without due process or any crime having been committed by it.

You already said it yourself. It all comes down to what is and what is not an act of self defense and reasonable belief.

A raped woman can reasonaonly believe that her life, health and well being is put in jeopardy by a pregnancy that is forced on her in a criminal act.

A woman who consents to and assumes those risks can not.

Lawmakers will eventually see that.

Mark my words.