Abortion///cont.

Eagles Wings

Eagles Wings

New member
George Affleck said:
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
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
quip said:
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.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the movie "Miracle on 34th Street".

Kris Kringle is deemed by the court to be, in fact, Santa Claus because the U.S. Post Office delivered mail addressed to Santa Claus to him. If a branch of the government recognizes him to be Santa Claus, then he must be Santa Claus.

But its even worse than that.
This argument is from silence without investigating that supposed silence.

The founding fathers definitely believed in the rights of the unborn.
They did not speak specifically to this because it perhaps seemed unconscionable that anyone would not know instinctively that the rights of the unborn were included.

James Wilson was one of only six men who signed both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

He said “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

From this we learn that the founding fathers did, indeed, believe that the constitution applies to the unborn. What they did not know is that movement in the womb begins at least as early as when the baby's heart begins to pump blood at around 5 weeks.

For more info. on this please see:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
George Affleck said:
But its even worse than that.
This argument is from silence without investigating that supposed silence.
Click to expand...

It's a silly argument, really.

The Constitution didn't include black people when referring to persons, originally.
Yet reason demands these human beings' rights must be protected as well. Hence an amendment.

Unprotected groups have been added to our government's definition of "person" before. The precedent is there.
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
George Affleck said:
This reminds me of the movie "Miracle on 34th Street".

Kris Kringle is deemed by the court to be, in fact, Santa Claus because the U.S. Post Office delivered mail addressed to Santa Claus to him. If a branch of the government recognizes him to be Santa Claus, then he must be Santa Claus.

But its even worse than that.
This argument is from silence without investigating that supposed silence.

The founding fathers definitely believed in the rights of the unborn.
They did not speak specifically to this because it perhaps seemed unconscionable that anyone would not know instinctively that the rights of the unborn were included.

James Wilson was one of only six men who signed both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

He said “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

From this we learn that the founding fathers did, indeed, believe that the constitution applies to the unborn. What they did not know is that movement in the womb begins at least as early as when the baby's heart begins to pump blood at around 5 weeks.

For more info. on this please see:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
Click to expand...

You realize that was taken as a given simply because women had no voice in government or the establishment of laws/rights in general. Women had little in the way of specific rights, let alone reproduction ones.

Nonetheless, (relatively) current analysis of constitutional rights introspectively integrates a perspective specific to women (i.e. reproductive rights) in it's application of general rights...where it was historically absent.

My argument simply underscores what you would rather exclude.
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
quip said:
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." ....
Click to expand...

glassjester said:
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?
Click to expand...

So can we kill Canadians, or what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top