Once again I repeat: no one is debating whether murder is bad, or even if states have laws about murder. The key here is that you claim your whining here is only in regards to the letter of the law, which you have yet to produce. You claim they do not exempt abortion yet you refuse to actually directly cite them, to instead give your own personal unsupported interpretation.
you can't cite what does not exist and no murder statutes exempt any particular type of killing, that would be including abortion there einstein. Your are the one claiming they do, which if they do you should be able to produce any number of murder statutes showing this exemption. If it's not exempted then there is no exemption and it would be inclusive of the law, so long as a viable fetus fits the definition of a "person" You're the one employing a dumbass strawman and are apparently aren't even aware enough of your own argument to even know it.
You claim I am deflecting the topic, which is nothing but your own insecurity. The topic is as you claim it to be: the letter of the law does not exempt abortion. I have asked you several times to support your claim by citing the law, and every single time without fail you have avoided it.
you are the one claiming it does. Go find a murder statute that exempts abortion of a viable fetus and we'll talk. How many different murder statutes would you like me to link from the fifty states? All of them? Here's a clue for you, you won't find abortion mentioned in any of them, and I can no more post what doesn't exist than you can. On the other hand, if it does exist in them, it should be relatively easy for you to prove your assertion that it does.
Ran from it. Deflected it by pointing the finger back at me. But at the end of all your worming away from the actual issue, the fact still remains that you have yet to cite a single law that shows abortion is not exempt. It very well may be the case, but for someone claiming they only care about the letter, you have yet to actually show it.
what other things that are not covered in murder statutes would you like me to link? If you think murder statutes include the phrase "except in the case of abortion of a viable fetus", then link it, because thats YOUR CLAIM.
You continue to insinuate that court findings are of little value, when in fact they are binding.
Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note how I supported something I said with a direct link to relevant information. You should try that sometime.
you're the one trying to make the central finding irelevant, not me. I'm citing it. You are attempting to deflect from it by relying on dicta. here's that hint for you again...
Central "finding" of Roe: The state has an interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus and the mothers privacy in access to abortion is only protected so long as the fetus is unviable.
So you still think this is a massive oversight whereby SCOTUS has illegally usurped power despite the decision being upheld time and time again. And then you wonder why I think you are a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
you would expect them to not uphold their userpation? Facts are what they are, the court has NO authority to write law in leiu of the congress writing them. If the congress has not acted the court can not act in its place. Thewre need be no "conspiracy" for the court to userp power, theri merely needs to be a doing. And its been done. Not the first time either.
So I take that to mean you can't actually discuss this issue.
you're really confused bud. You've contradicted yourself so many times you're probobly getting dizzy trying to find out what your arguments are.
Once again I will restate: laws ought to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral underpinnings of their topics, not the other way around. Blindly following unethical and immoral laws simply because they are laws has produced horrible outcomes throughout history. It amuses me that your only retort on this point is name calling. Did you have your nap yet?
who gives a shit what YOU think laws should be based on? Certainly not the courts. Which of course brings up the question...
What the hell is immoral or unethical about laws against murder?
The salem witch trials, inquisition, every other religious war, and that thing that I otherwise dare not bring up, the holocaust, were all "lawful" in approach. Do you need to review history?
Religious war? Thats funny. Religion is a tool in war not the cause nor the reason for it. Power is what wars are fought over.
Laws absolutely give us freedom of speech, which is not something people are born with. It is something inherent to American culture, certainly, but only because it was written into our laws from the start based on the subjugation of this country's founding citizens by Britain. If those truths are so self-evident, why do you suppose it took so long in human history to definitively establish them?
False, completely false and something only a authoritarian leftist progressive would believe. Our rights are endowed by our creator, not by government, not by the constitution, not by the law, they preexisted the law and the constitution, and the only thing the constitution does is preclude the government from infringing on what we allready possess.
Perhaps you missed the links I gave regarding abortion statistics in the US. You know, that supporting evidence thing again. The FACT remains that less than 1% of all abortions in this country take place after the fetus is of a viable age. Most health care providers simply will not offer those services whatsoever after the 24th week.
Even if true (which your self serving leftist propoganda surely would claim) how about we just kill off 1% of everyone over 80? Is that OK too? In the 1% figure what is considered a "viable age"? And best to not go with what "most health care providers" will do beacuse thats just not a statistical figue. Panned Parenthood will provide abortion services in just about every case right up untill about the 8th month when the procedures neccessary for performing them are illegal in most states. They perform 390K abortions every year.
Aw, baby is resorting to cursing. How cute. So let's review: you won't restate, and you won't even provide a link, but you insist you're right for reasons you stated but no one else besides you know. Right. Is there some question you feel I've overlooked and would like me to answer directly? I'm happy to.
Restate? Why would I when you have the same back button I do and you've already proven you don't read very well anyway?
What constitutional provision does the states interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus flow from?
What state interest other than protecting one persons rights could negate the rights of another person?
In the meantime, we have no understanding of what "human being" means to you.
because you either can't read or refuse to. been answered more than once, your lack of understanding or acknowledgement is your problem not mine.
Now you can go one of two ways: you can either realize you're in a discussion board and understand that basic communication skills are required to DISCUSS things, or you can continue to shove your fingers so deep into your ears that they touch each other in the middle, pretending that you're right simply because you can't hear anything else.
too funny. Just for you I'll answer one more time, but pay close attention, cause i won't do it again. Hopefully, this time it will sink in.
Human Being: A member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.
Pretty much covers the deffinition.
While true, it doesn't really differentiate the topics.
Once again showing your inanity. Yeah, I think that one is a pancreas and the other is a human being kinda differetiates them, otherwise, they'd both be a pancreas
Again, you gave the lay definition from a lay dictionary. In fact the biological definition of life is a bit different. If we go to any
standard biology dictionary, we readily discern that the #1 definition of life is "The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms." If we then look at any
encyclopedia, it is confirmed that definitions are not so easily applied to life. This returns me to my prior point, that we must discuss the ethics of this issue instead of throwing buzzwords at it with gray areas of definition. Murder is such a word. Human being is a large discussion which you are either unwilling to have or unwilling to reference where you've had it previously. Defining it as "individual" also pushes back the exact same point. Is a fetus an individual? What comprises an individual?
Again, we can either use buzzwords or address the actual ethics. Higher courts do the latter. You seem content with the former.
Buzzwords?
Higher courts do not rule based on what you think they do, they rule on the law as written and the constitution, not their "feelings".
You don't know what an individual is? Would you like for me to define "is" too? An individual is a single person of the genus homo sapiens sapiens. Rather a dumb question don't you think?
Laughable, you confuse the deffinition of a human being which is completely a specie distinction with the deffinition of a person. Which once again is a PHILISOPHICAL argument and has not a damned thing to do with ethics that regulate BEHAVIOR. The constitution does not preclude depriving the life of a human being without due process of law, it preclude depriving a PERSON of life. To help you out here A "person" is a viable living member of the species homo sapiens sapiens or so one can deduce from what the courts say.
The entire thing boils down to this. If a viable fetus is a "person" then they are covered in the statutes against murder simply by the fact that the equal protection clause does not allow different classes of persons to be protected differently. So we first have to look at the body of law to determine if a viable fetus is a person. And that brings us back to the central questions.
From what constitutional provision is the state granted authority to negate one persons rights? If a viable fetus is not a person, it has no rights, and the state has no compelling interest in protecting this non-entity over and above the rights of an actual person. But the courts say the state does. What other grant of authority to the states could possibly be used to justify the negation of a fundamental right other than a more compelling fundamental right? The state cannot have an interest pulled from the ether. It's interest must be grounded. Other than the compelling interest of not allowing a person to be deprived of life, what other possible interest could the state have that would negate the rights of the woman?
And as to "life" there is an accepted biological definition and the tripe you posted ain't it.
life, Matter characterized by the ability to metabolize nutrients (process materials for energy and tissue building), grow, reproduce, and respond and adapt to environmental stimuli.
A viable fetus fits all the criteria, in fact an embryo does, but then again the argument here isn't about whether a fetus is a "life" (we know it is), or a "human being" (we know it's that too), it's about whether it's a "person" in any legal sence. And for that you have to look at the body of law.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340003/life
Now, you can go on arguing points that are either inarguable or not being argued if it makes you feel good.
~BH
