Abortion

[Lumpy 1]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not quite. It is the right to determine how one's body is going to be used. It isn't just inconvenience, it is very basis of personal freedom. If someone is not free in their person, then they are not free. Would you be willing to give up your right to control of your body in favor of my right to life?

The simple fact of the matter, proven over and over in case law is that your right to do anything ends at the point where it interferes with the greater right that may be claimed by someone else.....see the hierarchy of rights.

Life liberty property.

Of what use is a right to property if your right to liberty is not first protected?

Of what use is a right to liberty if your right to life is not first prottected?

If someone may claim a greater right than the one you claim in any dispute, the right that sits higher on the hierarchy of rights takes precedence.

If you wish to treat this as a matter of law, then let's keep it to law. This hierarchy our are referring to is not law. It is philosophy. In law, abortion is legal. Therefore, the matter has been resolved.

Now if you wish to deal with this as a matter of philosophy, then we are back to my point. There is no freedom unless you are free in your person.

And how does one divorce law from philosophy? You pretend to want that, but not only is it impossible, but the truth is that what you REALLY want is to merely base the law on your own personal, flawed philosophy, rather than the greater philosophy humanity has always previously recognized, if imperfectly observed.

 

[AmyNation]

noun plural child
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.

Rights are guaranteed to human beings. Being a child is not a prerequisite to being a person.

What dictionary is SHE using, the Guttmacher version?

This is how MY dictionary defines "child":

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth

4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant

As we can see from both 1 and 4, its most general and non-contextually dependent definitions ABSOLUTELY include fetuses.

Dictionary.com

 

[AmyNation]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

I love ya lumpy, but that's a lot of nonsense.

 

[Lumpy 1]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

I love ya lumpy, but that's a lot of nonsense.

Perspectives change Darlin...

Liberals conveniently hide behind the central government nonsense they sponsored many years ago, it still, just offers up an excuse, an illusion that makes liberals... "Feel Good".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rights are guaranteed to human beings. Being a child is not a prerequisite to being a person.

What dictionary is SHE using, the Guttmacher version?

This is how MY dictionary defines "child":

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth

4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant

As we can see from both 1 and 4, its most general and non-contextually dependent definitions ABSOLUTELY include fetuses.

Dictionary.com

Ah, so the problem isn't that you're using a faulty dictionary that's lying to you. The problem is that you're a faulty human being who's lying to the rest of us. When I want my definitions cherry-picked to reflect your heinous and repulsive worldview, rest assured, I will ask you. Until then, you could at least PRETEND to be honest, if not literate.

 

[George Costanza]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

Let me give you what I feel is a pretty good analogy. DUI checkpoints are clearly violative of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In ruling that DUI checkpoints are legal and may be maintained by law enforcment agencies, The Supremes admitted that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment, but allowed their use in spite of this on the basis of a policy decision, namely, that the slight inconvenience to motorists caused by the brief intrusion into their day (or night) by being forced to go through a DUI checkpoint, is outweighed by the greater good to society in general by taking drunk drivers off the road.

I think this analogy applies to the issue of abortion. As I have said previously in this thread, I don't think there is any question but that life begins at the moment of conception. The current law on abortion appears to be based pretty much on the same logic as the DUI decision - a policy decision.

Policy decisions say something like: "Look - we understand the argument you are making against what we are about to do, and we concede the viability of your argument. However, in spite of all that, we are going to rule against you for policy reasons. Even though you are 100% correct, we feel that, after weighing both sides of the issue, it is a better policy to do it the way we want rather than the way you want."

Applied to the abortion question, it would look like this: "Even though we agree that life begins at the moment of conception, there are other interests to be considered and, taking those other interests into account, we rule that the life that began at the moment of conception must, to a certain degree, take a back seat to those other involved interests."

 

[Lumpy 1]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

Let me give you what I feel is a pretty good analogy. DUI checkpoints are clearly violative of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In ruling that DUI checkpoints are legal and may be maintained by law enforcment agencies, The Supremes admitted that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment, but allowed their use in spite of this on the basis of a policy decision, namely, that the slight inconvenience to motorists caused by the brief intrusion into their day (or night) by being forced to go through a DUI checkpoint, is outweighed by the greater good to society in general by taking drunk drivers off the road.

I think this analogy applies to the issue of abortion. As I have said previously in this thread, I don't think there is any question but that life begins at the moment of conception. The current law on abortion appears to be based pretty much on the same logic as the DUI decision - a policy decision.

Policy decisions say something like: "Look - we understand the argument you are making against what we are about to do, and we concede the viability of your argument. However, in spite of all that, we are going to rule against you for policy reasons. Even though you are 100% correct, we feel that, after weighing both sides of the issue, it is a better policy to do it the way we want rather than the way you want."

Applied to the abortion question, it would look like this: "Even though we agree that life begins at the moment of conception, there are other interests to be considered and, taking those other interests into account, we rule that the life that began at the moment of conception must, to a certain degree, take a back seat to those other involved interests."

Yes indeed.. the value of a human life is determined by the, Central Government, for the best of all of us in a Liberal/Democrat State...no argument there ole Buddy...

 

[AmyNation]

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

I love ya lumpy, but that's a lot of nonsense.

Perspectives change Darlin...

Liberals conveniently hide behind the central government nonsense they sponsored many years ago, it still, just offers up an excuse, an illusion that makes liberals... "Feel Good".

I believe the issue is sentience.

 

[AmyNation]

What dictionary is SHE using, the Guttmacher version?

This is how MY dictionary defines "child":

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth

4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant

As we can see from both 1 and 4, its most general and non-contextually dependent definitions ABSOLUTELY include fetuses.

Dictionary.com

Ah, so the problem isn't that you're using a faulty dictionary that's lying to you. The problem is that you're a faulty human being who's lying to the rest of us. When I want my definitions cherry-picked to reflect your heinous and repulsive worldview, rest assured, I will ask you. Until then, you could at least PRETEND to be honest, if not literate.

Just couldn't stay away? I know, my posts are too interesting to help yourself

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=child

 

[Lumpy 1]

I love ya lumpy, but that's a lot of nonsense.

Perspectives change Darlin...

Liberals conveniently hide behind the central government nonsense they sponsored many years ago, it still, just offers up an excuse, an illusion that makes liberals... "Feel Good".

I believe the issue is sentience.

Well...okay

 

[George Costanza]

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

Let me give you what I feel is a pretty good analogy. DUI checkpoints are clearly violative of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In ruling that DUI checkpoints are legal and may be maintained by law enforcment agencies, The Supremes admitted that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment, but allowed their use in spite of this on the basis of a policy decision, namely, that the slight inconvenience to motorists caused by the brief intrusion into their day (or night) by being forced to go through a DUI checkpoint, is outweighed by the greater good to society in general by taking drunk drivers off the road.

I think this analogy applies to the issue of abortion. As I have said previously in this thread, I don't think there is any question but that life begins at the moment of conception. The current law on abortion appears to be based pretty much on the same logic as the DUI decision - a policy decision.

Policy decisions say something like: "Look - we understand the argument you are making against what we are about to do, and we concede the viability of your argument. However, in spite of all that, we are going to rule against you for policy reasons. Even though you are 100% correct, we feel that, after weighing both sides of the issue, it is a better policy to do it the way we want rather than the way you want."

Applied to the abortion question, it would look like this: "Even though we agree that life begins at the moment of conception, there are other interests to be considered and, taking those other interests into account, we rule that the life that began at the moment of conception must, to a certain degree, take a back seat to those other involved interests."

Yes indeed.. the value of a human life is determined by the, Central Government, for the best of all of us in a Liberal/Democrat State...no argument there ole Buddy...

Yes - except for the fact that Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, smack dab in the middle of the Nixon administration. (Not that that really means all that much - the U.S. Supremes were a much more liberal court in 1973 than in following decades.)

 

[freedombecki]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

<you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Lumpy1 again...>

*sigh*

 

[freedombecki]

A fetus is human, and alive. No question about it. But it's not a person, and its life is not valued in the same way as a person.

If a group of judges or the government decided your life had less value (for some reason, your faith, your gender, your health, your race, financial status.. etc.) than the other 100% real persons, would you feel the same way?

Abortion has far more to do with POLITICs than actual humanity or "Life Science".

Let me give you what I feel is a pretty good analogy. DUI checkpoints are clearly violative of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In ruling that DUI checkpoints are legal and may be maintained by law enforcment agencies, The Supremes admitted that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment, but allowed their use in spite of this on the basis of a policy decision, namely, that the slight inconvenience to motorists caused by the brief intrusion into their day (or night) by being forced to go through a DUI checkpoint, is outweighed by the greater good to society in general by taking drunk drivers off the road.

I think this analogy applies to the issue of abortion. As I have said previously in this thread, I don't think there is any question but that life begins at the moment of conception. The current law on abortion appears to be based pretty much on the same logic as the DUI decision - a policy decision.

Policy decisions say something like: "Look - we understand the argument you are making against what we are about to do, and we concede the viability of your argument. However, in spite of all that, we are going to rule against you for policy reasons. Even though you are 100% correct, we feel that, after weighing both sides of the issue, it is a better policy to do it the way we want rather than the way you want."

Applied to the abortion question, it would look like this: "Even though we agree that life begins at the moment of conception, there are other interests to be considered and, taking those other interests into account, we rule that the life that began at the moment of conception must, to a certain degree, take a back seat to those other involved interests."

I truly appreciate you pointing out the reasoning for that here, George Costanza. My disenchantment with the Roe v. Wade decision came as an entire mindset was built around the ruling that takes the lives of more than a million Americans per year. In order to make fiscal issues "work" we're getting a like number of people coming across our borders who bear anger against our country and wish to expropriate our border states for rule by themselves rather than trying to fit in here, after border states raise taxes to accommodate their sustenance, living accommodations, educations, medical and dental needs, etc. I don't mean to make a strawman out of immigrants, I'm just sorry that what was thought to be a blessing for no more than 10,000 necessary medical based abortions turned into a million-plus a year industry to destroy half the next American generation. Over a million Americans taken away is a staggering number to me.

I don't mean to make anybody feel bad who had a life-threatening issue or other medical problem and had to have one, but our society will go down if we continue this demoralizing problem. Medical abortion has been hijacked to be chiefly a birth control measure, and not the life-sustaining health mode for keeping a woman from dying it was intended to be when the decision was made.

I care about a million + new people per annum. I just do.

 

[SSDD]

If you wish to treat this as a matter of law, then let's keep it to law. This hierarchy you are referring to is not law. It is philosophy. In law, abortion is legal. Therefore, the matter has been resolved.

No, it is a matter of law. When items are listed in a legal document, their order defines thier precedence. Our rights are laid out in a specific order in the declaration of independence which was, and continues to be a legal document. It is in essence the legal charter for the entity known as the United States. The constitution is the set of rules, bylaws, etc by which the promise of the charter will be carried out.

Now if you wish to deal with this as a matter of philosophy, then we are back to my point. There is no freedom unless you are free in your person.

I always stick to the law.

 

[SSDD]

No problem. I am injured in a accident and require a rare blood type.

Clearly it is a problem. I asked for you to describe a situation where you would find yourself, through no actions of your own, connected to AND dependent upon my bodily systems for your survival. An accident clearly does not leave you connected to me. If you can't come up with a situation that is analogous to an unborn's dependence upon its mother, then I am afraid you can't form a valid argument.

You keep saying "inconvenience". I assume you have never been pregnant or lived with a woman who was.

I say inconvenience because it is an accurate word to use. I am sure you don't like the idea of using it, but then who would. When abortion is spoken of in real terms rather than the rainbows and clovers language used by those who attempt to justify it, it doesn't come across as anything but barbaric....which it is. Here is the definition of convenience, if you can name a situation in which a woman's life, or long term health is not in imminent danger for which her reasons do not fit the definition of convenience, then by all means, lets hear it.

My wife gave birth twice and has undergone two surgeries since then to repair the damage to her system and still has medical issues related to those births.

Mine also. Our second child was a frank breech and required a pelvic reconstruction and later a full hysterectomy and all of the inconvenience that causes. Your point?

My position is simple. No human being has the right to the body of another human being.

Your position is your opinion. The court that decided Roe stated differently. They said in clear terms that should precedent exist for the personhood of unborns, the case would collapse as unborns would be protected under the 14th amendment. Such precedent has been established.

 

[SSDD]

My dear, you DO realize that Amy and her . . . ilk advocate, openly or secretly, for the killing of ALL "undesirables" who don't meet this century's standard of perfection - which at least has the advantage of last century's in not being as specific in regards hair and eye color - and congratulate themselves on being quite the "compassionate humanitarians" for their willingness to treat human beings like lame horses or unwanted kittens.

No, I didn't know that. What I do know is that she/he is woefully unprepared to make any sort of rational argument in support of his/her position. People who argue semantics should not be in the argument at all as semantics is the weakest possible argument one might make.

 

[SSDD]

Rights are guaranteed to human beings. Being a child is not a prerequisite to being a person.

What dictionary is SHE using, the Guttmacher version?

This is how MY dictionary defines "child":

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth

4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant

As we can see from both 1 and 4, its most general and non-contextually dependent definitions ABSOLUTELY include fetuses.

Dictionary.com

Try looking in an actual legal dictionary which is the only one that matters in matters of law. This being a matter decided by a higher court, Blacks is the only dictionary that matters. Blacks defines person as "a human being".

Want to play some more semantics? You are doomed to failure following that decidedly weak, and immature tactic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My dear, you DO realize that Amy and her . . . ilk advocate, openly or secretly, for the killing of ALL "undesirables" who don't meet this century's standard of perfection - which at least has the advantage of last century's in not being as specific in regards hair and eye color - and congratulate themselves on being quite the "compassionate humanitarians" for their willingness to treat human beings like lame horses or unwanted kittens.

No, I didn't know that. What I do know is that she/he is woefully unprepared to make any sort of rational argument in support of his/her position. People who argue semantics should not be in the argument at all as semantics is the weakest possible argument one might make.

I suspect you know as well as I do how seldom abortion is advocated on behalf of rationality, reason, or logic. Even THEY can hear how barbaric and inhuman they sound when they do, which is why they don't.

 

[SSDD]

I think this analogy applies to the issue of abortion. As I have said previously in this thread, I don't think there is any question but that life begins at the moment of conception. The current law on abortion appears to be based pretty much on the same logic as the DUI decision - a policy decision.

Then you have never read Roe. Roe was decided based on the courts claim that an unborn is a "potential" human life in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The court held that position because by denying that unborns were human beings, they could deny the personhood of unborns since the legal definition of person is "a human being".

The court further acknowledged that should legal precedence be established that unborns are human beings that the basis for roe would collapse as unborns would be protected by the 14th amendment.