Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[Cecilie1200]

What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?

Removal from the host.

What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?

In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being? Which dictionary or encyclopedia? What exactly is your source for this assertion?

 

[snjmom]

What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?

Removal from the host.

What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?

In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being? Which dictionary or encyclopedia? What exactly is your source for this assertion?

I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My source is the Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

 

[JBeukema]

Removal from the host.

What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?

In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being? Which dictionary or encyclopedia? What exactly is your source for this assertion?

I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My source is the Constitution.

Great, another Statist

COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either

So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Removal from the host.

What is your take on embryos in fertility clinics? Do the frozen embryos have the right to demand a host to continue their development?

In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being? Which dictionary or encyclopedia? What exactly is your source for this assertion?

I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My source is the Constitution.

Okay, two problems here. One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That would be the Declaration of Independence. So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.

Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point? Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case. Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!

[

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.

The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans.

 

[snjmom]

Quite obviously, they were open season.

What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?

 

[snjmom]

Great, another Statist

COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either

So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?

I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.

It's quite simple.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quite obviously, they were open season.

What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?

I realize that you're trying as hard as you can to make this all about "abortion is legal, so there", but THIS? Is there a language in which this post makes sense? Because it sure as shit doesn't in English.

 

[JBeukema]

Great, another Statist

COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either

So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?

I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.

It's quite simple.

That's what we heard when the natives were being wiped out.

Statism and genocide. Gotta love you people.

 

[Synthaholic]

In what science book did you find this "removal from the host" criteria for being a human being? Which dictionary or encyclopedia? What exactly is your source for this assertion?

I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My source is the Constitution.

Okay, two problems here. One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That would be the Declaration of Independence. So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.

Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point? Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case. Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!

[

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.

The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans.

Only 3/5 human. Also, property.

 

[snjmom]

Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?

That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.

Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?

 

[snjmom]

Only 3/5 human. Also, property.

Correct. Just like corporations are persons with the full protection of the Bill of Rights.

 

[AllieBaba]

Quite obviously, they were open season.

What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?

The same right a child has to demand care and protection from his parents.

The rights are not demanded; they are basic human gifts that we do not deny each other. The right to life, in other words. It's the first and foremost right, and no human has the right to take it from another human when that human has no say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Great, another Statist

COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either

So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?

I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.

It's quite simple.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality? That passing a law to do something makes it moral? How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?

 

[snjmom]

Quite obviously, they were open season.

What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?

The same right a child has to demand care and protection from his parents.

The rights are not demanded; they are basic human gifts that we do not deny each other. The right to life, in other words. It's the first and foremost right, and no human has the right to take it from another human when that human has no say.

A child has no right to demand care and protection from his parents. The state has the right to sever parental rights if it so wishes. We deny this right to life all the time. We deny medical care. We deny shelter. We deny food.

Don't be naive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm taking a real human to be one with legal protections and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My source is the Constitution.

Okay, two problems here. One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That would be the Declaration of Independence. So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.

Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point? Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case. Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!

[

So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.

The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans.

Only 3/5 human. Also, property.

Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.

The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human". The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:

". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.

Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings". So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they? Or perhaps they were insects? Plants?

 

[AllieBaba]

Quite obviously, they were open season.

What right does the fetus have to demand the use of the body of another?

The same right a child has to demand care and protection from his parents.

The rights are not demanded; they are basic human gifts that we do not deny each other. The right to life, in other words. It's the first and foremost right, and no human has the right to take it from another human when that human has no say.

A child has no right to demand care and protection from his parents. The state has the right to sever parental rights if it so wishes. We deny this right to life all the time. We deny medical care. We deny shelter. We deny food.

Don't be naive.

Yes, well, if you deny those things to your infant, you will go to jail.

There are rights, they are listed here and there in things like constitutions, bibles and korans; even primitive people recognize basic rights.

And you are naive and ignorant if you don't know that. Since I assume you are neither, I assume you are being duplicitous.

 

[syrenn]

Really?? I thought the main argument to keep abortions legal was to protect the mother's health?

Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life" Abortion=murder

Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.

Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too. I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.

Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.

Fish do not live in the air, humans do.

Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.

I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue. Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".

 

[snjmom]

Great, another Statist

COTUS didn't recognize blacks and women as people for a long time, either

So... which version of the constitution is the 'right' one?

I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.

It's quite simple.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality? That passing a law to do something makes it moral? How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?

I took real human being to be someone that you can't kill without punishment. I am saying that legality is a reflection of morality. If the morals of the day don't consider a particular human to be under the protection of the state, then there are no punishments for killing said human and certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions. You can find evidence of this throughout history and all over the globe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?

That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.

Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?

You're still blithering. Are you drunk? Is that why you're unable to make sense? Who's advocating ANYTHING having to do with our forebears?

What the holy hell do legally-protected rights have to do with whether or not someone is a "real human being" (your words)? What in the blazes are you BABBLING about?

THIS is quite plain English: STOP TRYING TO TOPIC-HOP. Just because you want to leap past any discussion of the basic facts upon which legal decisions are and should be made and go straight to a discussion of "This should be legal because it's legal" doesn't mean you get to. If you want to set your own topic, make your own thread. Don't come barging in here trying to impose YOUR topic choices on a discussion that's already begun.

If you're too cowardly to address the conversation at hand, get gone.

 

[AllieBaba]

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.