Abortion///cont.

[glassjester]

That doesn't concern me nor the argument at large.

It simply presumes one theory of life...among many.

Nothing seems to concern you, Quip.

You've asserted (not proven by reason) that killing a healthy unborn child in a healthy mother's womb is the moral equivalent of self-defense.

You've mentioned competing "theories of life" numerous times. You've said they're all subjective, and we've no right to impose any of them on anyone. Which part is subjective, Quip? That a fetus is alive? That a fetus is human? Or that an abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human?

I brought this up before, but you didn't really address it. If someone's personal, subjective theory of life is that the right to life begins at 33-years-old, can he murder a 32-year-old? Would arresting him for murder be an example of the state "imposing a subjective theory of life" upon the killer?

 

[quip]

Nothing seems to concern you, Quip.

You've asserted (not proven by reason) that killing a healthy unborn child in a healthy mother's womb is the moral equivalent of self-defense.

You've mentioned competing "theories of life" numerous times. You've said they're all subjective, and we've no right to impose any of them on anyone. Which part is subjective, Quip? That a fetus is alive? That a fetus is human? Or that an abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human?

I brought this up before, but you didn't really address it. If someone's personal, subjective theory of life is that the right to life begins at 33-years-old, can he murder a 32-year-old? Would arresting him for murder be an example of the state "imposing a subjective theory of life" upon the killer?

Arguing with you is like arguing with a temperamental child.

Learn the specifics: terms, breadth and boundaries of the argument or shut up.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a temperamental child.

Learn the specifics: terms, breadth and boundaries of the argument or shut up.

Hi Quip,

Roe v Wade determined that the baby in the womb is not a person. Non-personhood is necessary for sexual freedom.

It is a grave and profound evil to legalize the killing of preborn children in the name of personal freedom.

Psalm 139

 

[quip]

Hi Quip,

Roe v Wade determined that the baby in the womb is not a person.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Non-personhood is necessary for sexual freedom.

Non sequitur.

It is a grave and profound evil to legalize the killing of preborn children in the name of personal freedom.

Psalm 139

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Quip, you uphold Roe and the violence it perpetrates against human life.

 

[quip]

Quip, you uphold Roe and the violence it perpetrates against human life.

You're free to argue against it.

Just don't expect emotionally laden appeals to be taken seriously.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.

 

[Eagles Wings]

You're free to argue against it.

Just don't expect emotionally laden appeals to be taken seriously.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.

Nothing I've said is emotional.

I'm simply stating that you agree with the Court's decision that a preborn child is not a person, and can therefore be aborted.

Abortion is a death, and science has proven that there is pain and fear in the fetus, in that they try to move away from a needle or vacuum or scalpel.

What are worrying about a little 'ole reporter for?

 

[quip]

Nothing I've said is emotional.

I'm simply stating that you agree with the Court's decision that a preborn child is not a person, and can therefore be aborted.

Sure, but you arguments against are pure emotional.

 

[glassjester]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a temperamental child.

Learn the specifics: terms, breadth and boundaries of the argument or shut up.

I haven't said anything particularly temperamental or childish. You, telling me to "shut up," on the other hand, seems to show both of those qualities.

Though if "shutting me up" is your goal, addressing the questions above should do the trick.

 

[quip]

I haven't said anything particularly temperamental or childish. You, telling me to "shut up," on the other hand, seems to show both of those qualities.

Though if "shutting me up" is your goal, addressing the questions above should do the trick.

Learn the argument. Else, you're a waste of my time.

 

[ok doser]

Learn the specifics: terms, breadth and boundaries of the argument ...

quip, if all the discussion involved was the current law, how its written and how it came to be, you might have a point



but it isn't


here's your OP:

Quite to the contrary:

On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys. The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life". I've simply posited facts and example challenging this broad assertion on equal grounds.

 

[quip]

quip, if all the discussion involved was the current law, how its written and how it came to be, you might have a point



but it isn't


here's your OP:

Precisely. These issues are concurrent with the facts involved in the ruling.

Simply make your case if you view the ruling was in error. Just don't make sophomoric arguments proclaiming "Murder" or 11-day-olds....etc.

 

[ok doser]

Simply make your case if you view the ruling was in error.

the ruling was in error


/thread

 

[glassjester]

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

There's the error. There's the subjective standard that you yourself demand we not impose.

"Personhood" is completely subjective. How can you prove, objectively, that anyone of any age is, in fact, a person?

It seems that whenever personhood (or lack thereof) is being brought up, it's to rationalize killing humans.

 

[ok doser]

There's the error. There's the subjective standard that you yourself demand we not impose.

"Personhood" is completely subjective. How can you prove, objectively, that anyone of any age is, in fact, a person?

It seems that whenever personhood (or lack thereof) is being brought up, it's to rationalize killing humans.

hence the reason why i wanted to get quip to acknowledge that

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

 

[glassjester]

hence the reason why i wanted to get quip to acknowledge that

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

Which he already has. Now what?

 

[quip]

the ruling was in error


/thread

That about sums up your made case. lain:

/thread

 

[quip]

There's the error. There's the subjective standard that you yourself demand we not impose.

"Personhood" is completely subjective. How can you prove, objectively, that anyone of any age is, in fact, a person?

It seems that whenever personhood (or lack thereof) is being brought up, it's to rationalize killing humans.

Again, mouthing off without knowing the facts:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." ....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

 

[George Affleck]

You're free to argue against it.

Just don't expect emotionally laden appeals to be taken seriously.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.

Quip,

You know very well that no appeals, emotional or otherwise will be taken seriously.
So it really doesn't matter.

People want what they want, when they want it.
And they are prepared to justify murder to accomplish it.

I take it as self evident that the born and the unborn are equally persons, just in different stages of development.
There are those who talk themselves out of common sense to achieve a desired end.

It is extreme discrimination to believe that certain persons do not deserve to live because they are a different class. African Americans have experienced this discrimination as have Jews and other victims of ethnic cleansing. Abortion is just the one that is popular in our so-called modern society.

It will pass; just as the others have. And generations in the future will look back on our dark ages with disdain just as we do now in self righteous piety.

In the meantime, the truth of it is that freedom means freedom for all.

I advise you to reconsider in your heart if you are an accessory after the fact.


Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. Exo 23:7KJV

 

[glassjester]

Again, mouthing off without knowing the facts:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." ....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

I'm not "mouthing off," dude.

Look what you quoted. The most you could argue from that quote is that the unborn aren't (according to the Constitution) yet American citizens. Alright. Neither are Canadians. Does that give me the right to kill them?