CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

[Chuz Life]

When the Constitution was written, full grown slaves were not Constitutionally recognized as equal "persons" either.

Oh look, the Hitler card. How cute. Well, two can play at that.

The PETA kooks say you're just like Hitler, for refusing to recognize the personhood of animals.

By your logic, they have to be considered correct, being that "feeling very strongly about it" is the proof they use and the proof you use. So, by your own standards, you're just like Hitler. Seig Heil, you Nazi. And you can't complain about that, because you were the one who tossed out the Hitler card.

One can easily argue that the original "intent" was never to exclude ANY human beings of any age, race, creed or stage of life from their personhood protections - despite the fact that they got it wrong with regards to slaves and in other areas.

One could, but it would be a nonsensical argument, being there's no evidence to back it up. It would be like the PETA kooks claiming their intent was for cows to be considered people.

I have a hard time telling pro-life and PETA apart, being that they both rely on the same basic argument. They both toss out some wild historical revisionism concerning what a person is defined as, and then declare that anyone who doesn't accept their weird lexical revisionism is a murderer.

I have no problem with those who want to recognize the personhood of NON human animals.

It only more makes the case that children (actual human beings even while in the womb) are persons too.

EDIT: That said, it would be extremely hypocritical for someone (anyone) to claim a mouse of a fish in a stream is a person - but the actual young of human parents (while in the womb) is something less. Agree?

 

[mamooth]

EDIT: That said, it would be extremely hypocritical for someone (anyone) to claim a mouse of a fish in a stream is a person - but the actual young of human parents (while in the womb) is something less. Agree?

Not necessarily. It depends on their standards. If they use a standard of "born", then it's entirely consistent.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am prepared to debate the origins of "personhood" anytime you like.

If you are interested in any of my past debates on the subject, Here you go: " Debate: A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being" | Debate.org "

Translation: I refuse to answer the question. Look! Squirrel!

Okay, have it your way but let's not forget you brought up the idea of "personhood" and are now refusing to prove your premise that personhood begins at conception.

I am not dodging anything in the way of personhood. Like I said, we already have laws which make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act - in ANY stage of development of said child's life.

You seem to want to challenge those laws and I don't.

That's all.

Disagreed. You refuse to answer the question regarding proving your premise that personhood begins at conception then you threaten me with a rule violation when, in fact, you are the only one who has violated the rules on this thread.

I know you THINK you are being civil with your tone and all (dropping the FBomb and being so confrontational) but we will have to agree to disagree on that.

As for personhood, I have already shared my premise on that. And while I agree it was a violation to share the link, you do now have access to the details and specifics of my premise.

 

[Chuz Life]

EDIT: That said, it would be extremely hypocritical for someone (anyone) to claim a mouse of a fish in a stream is a person - but the actual young of human parents (while in the womb) is something less. Agree?

Not necessarily. It depends on their standards. If they use a standard of "born", then it's entirely consistent.

Well if we are all permitted to have each our own standards, what does that solve?

 

[mamooth]

Well if we are all permitted to have each our own standards, what does that solve?

Nothing.

However, that's not a problem here, as for essentially all of humanity over all of human history, "person" has been defined as "human, born and alive". It's only recently that pro-lifers have tried to create a new social/legal/ethical definition.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well if we are all permitted to have each our own standards, what does that solve?

Nothing.

However, that's not a problem here, as for essentially all of humanity over all of human history, "person" has been defined as "human, born and alive". It's only recently that pro-lifers have tried to create a new social/legal/ethical definition.

Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

Also, for what it is worth - the phrase "with child" to refer to a pregnancy dates all the bay back to (at least) Biblical times.

So, yeah. . . let's have that debate.

 

[Pogo]

Mod Edit -- XXXX -- End of discussing the rules. Just report what you PERCEIVE to be infractions.

If you have arguments, even if already made in the past, make them here. Might start with the premise in the first five words of your poll --- upon which the Church in its history has much vacillated depending on what gave it sociopolitical advantage at the time.

I have no idea why you feel my post has anything at all to do with "the church." I tried to make it as clear as possible that this is a Constitutional issue.

Whelp --- because the Church, being the original institution to prescribe the morals of life and death, was the first entity to take a position on it, long before the Law did. And because you framed your OP in terms of the assumed premise of "when life begins". That's a religious issue first.

Your poll btw is impossible to vote in, because it assumes a premise you haven't established.

If that's how you feel, then don't take the poll.

I didn't. As you can easily see.
I'm pointing out the flaw in its construction, and why it's exclusive. Which in turn is why you won't get meaningful results.

As the poll is based upon a hypothetical though (note the word "IF") then your expectation for the premise to already be established seems dubious at best.

Whatever that means....

 

[mamooth]

Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

And those scientific facts are very unkind to the pro-life movement.

Also, for what it is worth - the phrase "with child" to refer to a pregnancy dates all the bay back to (at least) Biblical times

And therefore, the phrase "bun in the oven" demonstrates how a fetus is really a pastry.

 

[Chuz Life]

Seems like you forgot that linking to other message board sites is strictly verboten hier.

I'm not saying you are wrong about that but I certainly did not see any mention of that in the rules of this thread or forum.

I didn't either when I joined but was given an infraction for it soon after. I agree it's a bizarre and unexpected rule, but it is a rule. Point being, if you have a case, make it here, not "there".

I have already made MY case. Our fetal homicide laws already make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" in a "criminal act." Those laws are based on the fact that a "human being" in the first days of their life is "a human being."

I support those laws and their conclusions. So, I see no need to debate it any further than that.

You do.

Likewise, you could take the position that you consider Roe to be settled law, and that would be fine by me if you do.

I'm still going to fight to overturn it though.

If you have arguments, even if already made in the past, make them here. Might start with the premise in the first five words of your poll --- upon which the Church in its history has much vacillated depending on what gave it sociopolitical advantage at the time.

I have no idea why you feel my post has anything at all to do with "the church." I tried to make it as clear as possible that this is a Constitutional issue.

Whelp --- because the Church, being the original institution to prescribe the morals of life and death, was the first entity to take a position on it, long before the Law did. And because you framed your OP in terms of the assumed premise of "when life begins". That's a religious issue first.

I disagree.

The matter of when a life begins is purely biological and as such is much more in the realm of science than it is in religion.

I don't need God or a belief in God to know the life cycle of a human being, how babies are made, etc. And, neither does anyone else.

Your poll btw is impossible to vote in, because it assumes a premise you haven't established.

If that's how you feel, then don't take the poll.

I didn't. As you can easily see.
I'm pointing out the flaw in its construction, and why it's exclusive. Which in turn is why you won't get meaningful results.

Do you have a better way to poll the question;"If it is established that personhood begins at conception. . . abortion must be banned." Agree or disagree?

As the poll is based upon a hypothetical, (note the word "IF") then your expectation for the premise to already be established seems dubious at best.

Whatever that means....

See above.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

And those scientific facts are very unkind to the pro-life movement.

If you think so.

But, so far - the Supreme Court has let the convictions under our fetal homicide laws which support MY claims, stand.

If you have evidence that people are rotting in prison for MURDERS they could not possibly have committed because their alleged victims were NOT human beings and NOT persons. . . why are you not doing something about it?

More to the point, why do you suppose their defense teams have failed to provide the evidence that YOU claim to have - to overturn those convictions?

Also, for what it is worth - the phrase "with child" to refer to a pregnancy dates all the bay back to (at least) Biblical times

And therefore, the phrase "bun in the oven" demonstrates how a fetus is really a pastry.

Are you suggesting because one is a metaphor they both are? Or, that they HAVE to both be metaphors? Or, can you comprehend the possibility that one could be a little more factually true than the other?

 

[there4eyeM]

Being that abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.

But then, when has the right ever cared about original intent?

Being as humans who were women or humans who were black or humans who were Indian or humans who did not own land were excluded from representation in taxation, they were tyrannized by definition.

 

[Divine Wind]

....Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

Also, for what it is worth - the phrase "with child" to refer to a pregnancy dates all the bay back to (at least) Biblical times.

So, yeah. . . let's have that debate.

Awesome. I love science! You know, "understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today". So please post a single legitimate scientific paper that says a zygote is equal to a Human Being. That a zygote is a person.

Just one legitimate paper is fine.

 

[Chuz Life]

....Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

Also, for what it is worth - the phrase "with child" to refer to a pregnancy dates all the bay back to (at least) Biblical times.

So, yeah. . . let's have that debate.

Awesome. I love science! You know, "understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today". So please post a single legitimate scientific paper that says a zygote is equal to a Human Being. That a zygote is a person.

Just one legitimate paper is fine.

When Does Human Life Begin?
A Scientific Perspective
Maureen L. Condic Senior Fellow Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

 

[Divine Wind]

I know you THINK you are being civil with your tone and all (dropping the FBomb and being so confrontational) but we will have to agree to disagree on that....

Awesome. You reported me and all of my "confrontational" posts were deleted. About six, by my count. Figures. Have a nice day, sir.

 

[Divine Wind]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

No, but what does that have to do with your own OP? Where in the oath does it mention abortion?

 

[Chuz Life]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

No, but what does that have to do with your own OP? Where in the oath does it mention abortion?

I have no idea what you are reading in my OP that makes you think I claimed that the Oath mentions abortion specifically.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all, let's be clear. It is understood that the President alone does not have the power nor the authority to "ban abortion" on their own. Please don't read too far into the title of this thread.

That said, on inauguration day, January 20, 2017 - When President Elect Donald Trump is sworn in as the President of the United States, he will "swear or affirm that he "will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of our land. What it says matters not only to the "pro-choice" arguments surrounding abortion but to the "pro-life" side of the issue as well.

The Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments state clearly that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws and that no "person" can be "deprived of their life" without due process of law.

When Roe v Wade was being decided, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said; "the basic Constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s critical to this case, is it not?"

To which the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington responded; "Yes, it is."

Justice Potter Stewart continued; "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?"

And Sarah Weddington responded again, saying; "I would have a very difficult case."

All sides have agreed from the start that the Constitution and "personhood" are key components in the abortion debate.

Of course, we all know that the Supreme Court ruled in their 7-2 decision - that "All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

However, The Supreme Court did recognize even in Roe that; "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, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."

The Supreme Court of the United States is very sensitive to the "personhood" aspect of the abortion issue.

During Oral Arguments, Justice Potter Stewart commented; "Well, if---if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here,would you not?"

MRS. WEDDINGTON responded: "I would have a very difficult case."

The question becomes; "What (if anything) has changed in the way of establishing the "personhood" of children in the womb - in the four decades following the Roe v Wade decision?

The most obvious answer to that question is found in the language and in the upheld convictions of our nations many "Fetal Homicide" laws.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Forty Three Years after Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart speculated that a State or State's "could" establish "personhood" for children in the womb, the Federal Government and nearly Forty States have already passed laws which essentially do exactly that.

As Gloria Feldt, the former President of Planned Parenthood said herself; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot."

The Oath of office that President (elect) Trump will be taking soon, on January 20th, 2017 will not leave room for anything less!

So what do you expect President Trump to do- since as you pointed out- he has no authority to do anything regarding abortion.

 

[Divine Wind]

I have no idea what you are reading in my OP that makes you think I claimed that the Oath

Pass out in the middle of your post? Are you okay?

 

[Syriusly]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

I expect that President Trump will dismiss all sorts of serious matters for political expediancy.

Again- what do you expect a President Trump could do?

 

[jwoodie]

The problem the Libtards face is they they made abortion a federal issue. If forced to make a "choice" between partial birth abortions and no abortions, a majority of decent persons will always choose the latter.