Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Quantum Windbag, Jul 31, 2012.
I doubt that is why they did not address abortion or same sex marriage.
First they would have had to think about the topics. I suspect they did not.
Second the topics would have to have had to had a relatively high priority in their mind. Since I doubt the first hurdle was passed, this hurdle was probably moot.
Just sayin' and all that.
There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.
Various statutes against abortion began to appear in the 1820s
Actually it bears little or no resemblance.
Try thinking Golden Rule. No Put Downs. Civil Discourse. PG Rating for the most part.
There are Rules and Guide Lines here, that don't exist on the other Forums. You choose to honor them, or Post elsewhere. Plain and simple. Everyone is entitled to their views here. The focus is on form. Are we able to communicate articulately, without Flaming, Name Calling, or offending? I think we are capable of it, even disagreeing, and agreeing that we disagree, without slimming each other. Look at it as a social experiment.
Interesting. Thanks. I would need to recraft my rebuttal if we were both interested in pursuing the topic. I doubt you are invested in it. I know I'm not. I was just passing through. ( :
I had to chuckle at QW's comment that he bet he could offend somebody without breaking any rules in the CDZ. I sure wouldn't take that bet. I seem to be able to offend some people by saying nothing more than "good morning" some days.
But finding a person's remarks offensive and telling them off are two separate things. Being offended and smacking somebody in the nose are two separate things. Being offended and organizing or imposing retalitory response are separate things.
In the first case in all these statements, we all can own our own feelings and are entitled to them. In the second case in all these statements, we impose 'justice' on whomever commits that which offended us. And it is there that the moral judgment needs to be drawn.
Is it the moral choice to boycott or organize protests or deny a business license to a business owner because he says something that offends us? And is it always the case that we don't have a right to demand that we not be offended? If so, how does enforced political correctness not give some a 'right' to not be offended?
Abortion and same sex marriage both predate the existence of this country. What I suspect is that they couldn't imagine a society where people needed the governments permission to get married, and that doctors could make up their own minds about whether killing someone was justified or not.
Quickening would be about the time the heart starts beating, which is the 9th or 10th week.
Ahem. Respectfully noting that the topic QW offered here is an interesting one. Can we drag the train back onto that track and away from yet another debate on abortion that should have its own thread?
You do not have the right not to be offended? Why not? What bothers you may not be what bothers your neighbor. To use the example of a slaughterhouse in the neighborhood, if your neighbor works at the slaughterhouse he may appreciate being able to walk to work, and is so used to the smell of death that it doesn't bother him.
Separate names with a comma.