CDZ Any Government, no matter how large or small. . .

[forkup]

-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?

It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."

Those are THEIR words, not mine.

Sure but I gave you a clear argumentation to challenge the voluntarily nature of getting pregnant in light of birth control. It flatters me that you think it takes a member of the supreme court to answer me but it's a bit of a cop out isn't it?

It's not a cop out when the legal nature of "assumptions of risks" have already long been established and no one is challenging them

The legal nature of assumption of risk has been established. You just fail too make an argument to make it apply too abortion.

Is it not common sense to conclude that no birth control is 100% effective and that intercourse has a certain risk for pregnancy that one must assume the risks for, before having sex?

I don't like it but I have to concede this point. I want to talk longer but I have to go to work tomorrow. Not trying to weasel out here but it's bedtime. I will try to come back tomorrow. It was fun Chuz.

 

[Vastator]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You need to read the 14th amendment just a little more slowly and while paying closer attention to how it specifically uses the word "persons" for some things and where it uses the word "citizen" for others.

Hint: They are NOT the same.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh, I'm aware. However that isn't a winning strategy for the continuance of our nation, nor the betterment of our children's future. As much as I love our founders vision for a nation; we've strayed far from the path they envisioned. The 14th is but one of many examples. We are a very different nation now, through, and through; than we were then. At some point one has to stop and ask... "When did we cease being the nation, our founders created"? Once we have the temerity to ask ourselves this question; only then can we really decide what kind of nation we'd like to become. And what kind of nation we'd like to leave to our children...

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You need to read the 14th amendment just a little more slowly and while paying closer attention to how it specifically uses the word "persons" for some things and where it uses the word "citizen" for others.

Hint: They are NOT the same.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh, I'm aware. However that isn't a winning strategy for the continuance of our nation, nor the betterment of our children's future. As much as I love our founders vision for a nation; we've strayed far from the path they envisioned. The 14th is but one of many examples. We are a very different nation now, through, and through; than we were then. At some point one has to stop and ask... "When did we cease being the nation, our founders created"? Once we have the temerity to ask ourselves this question; only then can we really decide what kind of nation we'd like to become. And what kind of nation we'd like to leave to our children...

EDIT. I misread your post before responding.

 

[Vastator]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You need to read the 14th amendment just a little more slowly and while paying closer attention to how it specifically uses the word "persons" for some things and where it uses the word "citizen" for others.

Hint: They are NOT the same.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh, I'm aware. However that isn't a winning strategy for the continuance of our nation, nor the betterment of our children's future. As much as I love our founders vision for a nation; we've strayed far from the path they envisioned. The 14th is but one of many examples. We are a very different nation now, through, and through; than we were then. At some point one has to stop and ask... "When did we cease being the nation, our founders created"? Once we have the temerity to ask ourselves this question; only then can we really decide what kind of nation we'd like to become. And what kind of nation we'd like to leave to our children...

Ummmmm, the Founders were not the ones who wrote the 14th AMENDment.

You know that.

Right?

That's quite the point... Now, isn't it?

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You need to read the 14th amendment just a little more slowly and while paying closer attention to how it specifically uses the word "persons" for some things and where it uses the word "citizen" for others.

Hint: They are NOT the same.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh, I'm aware. However that isn't a winning strategy for the continuance of our nation, nor the betterment of our children's future. As much as I love our founders vision for a nation; we've strayed far from the path they envisioned. The 14th is but one of many examples. We are a very different nation now, through, and through; than we were then. At some point one has to stop and ask... "When did we cease being the nation, our founders created"? Once we have the temerity to ask ourselves this question; only then can we really decide what kind of nation we'd like to become. And what kind of nation we'd like to leave to our children...

Ummmmm, the Founders were not the ones who wrote the 14th AMENDment.

You know that.

Right?

That's quite the point... Now, isn't it?

Yeah. see my edit.

 

[anotherlife]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You can't treat foreigners differently from citizens, because you tax them the same way and you don't notify them of any difference before they come.

But we can. And we should. Foreigners arent our equals when on our soil, and the laws should reflect that. As long as we keep treating outsiders with such unwarranted equality; we'll continue to piss away our children's birthright.

Then you have to tell the foreigners what the deal is before they come. America has never been able to do that. And you would have to give them back their money too. America is not the worst offender though, Europe is, generally speaking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

It's the responsibility of government - elected officials and lawmakers - to follow settled, accepted Constitutional case law.

And among the most fundamental facts of Constitutional law - beyond dispute - is that one is not entitled to Constitutional protections until birth.

Government is subject solely to the rule of law, and the role and responsibilities of government exist solely in the context of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Do baby's [sic] have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?"

Anyone born is a person entitled to Constitutional protections; prior to birth, not.

 

[Chuz Life]

And among the most fundamental facts of Constitutional law - beyond dispute - is that one is not entitled to Constitutional protections until birth.

Then what do you suppose the Supreme Court meant when they said;

IX
The (anti-abortion) 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 (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

 

[Chuz Life]

"Do baby's [sic] have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?"

Anyone born is a person entitled to Constitutional protections; prior to birth, not.

Those who have already been convicted of MURDERS under our existing fetal HOMICIDE laws would probably pay you top dollar for your expertise on that.

 

[Picaro]

The modern neo-pagan cults demand human sacrifices even more than the old pagans did, and babies are considered the primary and most desirable choice of sacrifices to their cult. The next step in their mass murder campaigns is bumping the age up, from Obama's support for 'partial birth' abortions, involving jamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull that the usual sick freaks positively cream themselves over, to 2 years old now. The same psychotic 'reasoning' Jake uses for 'fetuses' applies to older babies as well, after all.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

....


Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

1. 
   
   
   • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
   • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

It's such emotional retardation as this that 'progressivism' runs on, psychos hiding bhind 'science', just as the Nazi Party did.

 

[anotherlife]

The modern neo-pagan cults demand human sacrifices even more than the old pagans did, and babies are considered the primary and most desirable choice of sacrifices to their cult. The next step in their mass murder campaigns is bumping the age up, from Obama's support for 'partial birth' abortions, involving jamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull that the usual sick freaks positively cream themselves over, to 2 years old now. The same psychotic 'reasoning' Jake uses for 'fetuses' applies to older babies as well, after all.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

....


Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

1. 
   
   
   • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
   • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

You need to learn how not to write run on sentences. How is your skull?

 

[otto105]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

 

[Picaro]

The modern neo-pagan cults demand human sacrifices even more than the old pagans did, and babies are considered the primary and most desirable choice of sacrifices to their cult. The next step in their mass murder campaigns is bumping the age up, from Obama's support for 'partial birth' abortions, involving jamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull that the usual sick freaks positively cream themselves over, to 2 years old now. The same psychotic 'reasoning' Jake uses for 'fetuses' applies to older babies as well, after all.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

....


Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

1. 
   
   
   • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
   • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

You need to learn how not to write run on sentences. How is your skull?

You need to kiss my ass, and there isn't a run on sentence in my post. Your 3rd grade level of education just hasn't gotten to complex sentences yet.

 

[anotherlife]

The modern neo-pagan cults demand human sacrifices even more than the old pagans did, and babies are considered the primary and most desirable choice of sacrifices to their cult. The next step in their mass murder campaigns is bumping the age up, from Obama's support for 'partial birth' abortions, involving jamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull that the usual sick freaks positively cream themselves over, to 2 years old now. The same psychotic 'reasoning' Jake uses for 'fetuses' applies to older babies as well, after all.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

....


Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

1. 
   
   
   • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
   • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

You need to learn how not to write run on sentences. How is your skull?

You need to kiss my ass, and there isn't a run on sentence in my post. Your 3rd grade level of education just hasn't gotten to complex sentences yet.

I dunno. But I am good with the scissor. Isn't that good?

 

[Picaro]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

And blacks and Jews and gypsies weren't persons either in Nazi Germany.

 

[emilynghiem]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Yes and no. Chuz Life
I would focus on the govt "as in the PEOPLE" taking responsibility
for protecting and respecting each other's beliefs about this.
Since beliefs are involved, the govt CANNOT make or mandate
such decisions for the people.

so I'd say the responsibility lies with the PEOPLE,
and then as PEOPLE we can agree how to formulate Govt policies
(that neither prohibit nor establish one belief over another regarding
abortion and abortion legislation).

NOTE: the prochoice arguments are focused more on the legislation.
the prolife arguments are focused on the actual abortion.

For Constitutional policies to reflect and include all people regardless of belief,
these should satisfy BOTH the prochoice concerns about legislation and due process
and the prolife concerns about the actual abortion process and prevention.

So that's why the PEOPLE need to address and resolve this FIRST.
THEN the govt can follow what the people AGREE is the most ethical and effective policy.

But not the other way around.

Until the people agree on policy,
the most the govt should be able to do is
PROTECT THEIR BELIEFS FROM INFRINGEMENT BY THE OTHER.

So I do believe the govt should enforce protection of BELIEFS about prolife and prochoice.
but I do not believe the govt should be ABUSED to favor biased laws
that establish one belief over another in violation of equal protections of the law without discrimination by creed.

The govt CAN prevent people of prolife beliefs from
being forced to fund and endorse abortion policies that violate their beliefs.

but likewise the govt should equally protect people of prochoice beliefs.

That's not the same as making the actual policy "for" the people.
The people should agree and make the policies "for" govt by consensus.

the govt role is to protect democratic due process and right to petition
and protections so the PEOPLE can pursue solutions in line with their beliefs.

 

[Picaro]

The modern neo-pagan cults demand human sacrifices even more than the old pagans did, and babies are considered the primary and most desirable choice of sacrifices to their cult. The next step in their mass murder campaigns is bumping the age up, from Obama's support for 'partial birth' abortions, involving jamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull that the usual sick freaks positively cream themselves over, to 2 years old now. The same psychotic 'reasoning' Jake uses for 'fetuses' applies to older babies as well, after all.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

....


Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

1. 
   
   
   • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
   • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

You need to learn how not to write run on sentences. How is your skull?

You need to kiss my ass, and there isn't a run on sentence in my post. Your 3rd grade level of education just hasn't gotten to complex sentences yet.

I dunno. But I am good with the scissor. Isn't that good?

Yes, you have no real justification or argument re what I posted. Go ahead and jam a pair of scissors into your own skull if you want to. It doesn't bother me when sociopaths experiment with their own 'scientific methods' on themselves.

 

[otto105]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

And blacks and Jews and gypsies weren't persons either in Nazi Germany.

Blacks, Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany as races of people in Germany before WWII have nothing to do with the point of this thread.

However, the legal status of a zygote does. Care to keep your comments to that.

 

[Picaro]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Yes and no. The govt as in the PEOPLE taking responsibility for protecting and respecting each other's beliefs about this.

so I'd say the responsibility lies with the PEOPLE
and then as PEOPLE we can agree how to formulate govt policies
that neither prohibit nor establish one belief over another regarding
abortion and abortion legislation.

NOTE: the prochoice arguments are focused on the legislation.
the prolife arguments are focused on the actual abortion.

Constitutional laws that reflect and include all people regardless of belief
should satisfy BOTH the prochoice concerns about legislation and due process
and the prolife concerns about the actual abortion process and prevention.

So that's why the PEOPLE need to address and resolve this FIRST.
THEN the govt can follow what the people AGREE is the most ethical and effective policy.

But not the other way around.

Until the people agree on policy,
the most the govt should be able to do is
PROTECT THEIR BELIEFS FROM INFRINGEMENT BY THE OTHER.

So I do believe the govt should enforce protection of BELIEFS about prolife and prochoice.
but I do not believe the govt should be ABUSED to favor biased laws
that establish one belief over another in violation of equal protections of the law without discrimination by creed.

The govt CAN prevent people of prolife beliefs from
being forced to fund and endorse abortion policies that violate their beliefs.

but likewise the govt should equally protect people of prochoice beliefs.

That's not the same as making the actual policy "for" the people.
The people should agree and make the policies "for" govt by consensus.

the govt role is to protect democratic due process and right to petition
and protections so the PEOPLE can pursue solutions in line with their beliefs.

There was time when this might have carried weight, and nobody can really argue that a victim of rape, under-aged girl knocked up, or some medical danger to the mother should not be able to have an abortion, but pregnancy is otherwise 100% preventable these days, birth control is plentiful and so is education. There really are no excuses at all any more for abortion on demand, period, and some 60 million killings, just to appease a fashion.