Abortion///cont.

[quip]

That does not make sense. The willingness of the parents to be parents does not determine whether they are parents.

Would the same hold true of a newborn? If a mother and father decide they do not wish to be parents of a newborn, are they no longer the parents of that newborn?

Danoh seems to be spot on here.

Caviling, waste of time.

 

[Town Heretic]

Both begin by assuming a right,

Well, both begin with an arguable assumption that is shared by all sides, the belief that we have rights, principle among them the right to be. The question under consideration involves where we might interfere with that right.

rights for the woman are established by rational appraisal

Not the right in question, which was established by arbitrary litmus coupled with the ability to impose it.

Something your position lacks/avoids...by way of necessity.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make objective sense. You need to supply the "how" of that. My position/argument is both reasoned and necessary. The litmus arbitrarily applied by the Court in its decision was neither. It echoed Scott in the fundamental imposition of a bias.

There was no bodily impositions pressed upon the slave owner...a specious comparison at best.

Rather, that you consider a few months of physical imposition and some hardship more important than economic deprivation and ruination is purely a subjective standard of your own and neither reduces the analogy offered to the specious nor elevates your rebuttal to the prima facie or reasonable.

It's logic and subsequent value is inferred...supra.

I believe you believe it to be so, but neither agreeing nor seeing the point, again, how so?

 

[Danoh]

You know very well that the word "parent" is as legitimately a noun as it is a verb.

It is an objective, biological fact that I have two parents. It is not just a convenient thing to say.

Never said it is a convenient thing to say. That is what you read into what I said.

:doh:

 

[ok doser]

The word "parent" is a verb ....

is a verb? :freak:

are you attempting to parse the etymology?

 

[quip]

Well, both begin with an arguable assumption that is shared by all sides, the belief that we have rights, principle among them the right to be. The question under consideration involves where we might interfere with that right.

Agreed.

Not the right in question, which was established by arbitrary litmus coupled with the ability to impose it.

You've no ground for such a declarative dismissal. Roe vs. Wade was a tangible challenge to our constitutional ideal of freedom and liberty. You've alluded as such above: The question under consideration involves where we might interfere with that right.

You may and will disagree with the ruling though, you cannot justly deny constitutional remonstration by arbitrary dismissal.

 

[Town Heretic]

=You've no ground for such a declarative dismissal.

I do and I've noted it: their standard is no more empirically, objectively, demonstrably true than the fellow who believes right vests with breath. It was an arbitrary distinction and one enforced by power, not reason.

Roe vs. Wade was a tangible challenge to our constitutional ideal of freedom and liberty. You've alluded as such above: The question under consideration involves where we might interfere with that right.

I'd agree it was a watershed, a seminal moment, so far, in the story of how we view right and vestment.

You may and will disagree with the ruling though, you cannot simply deny the constitutional ramifications by arbitrary dismissal.

I don't deny the importance of the decision or its ramifications, but there's nothing arbitrary in my dismissal and nothing that isn't arbitrary in their holding.

 

[quip]

I don't deny the importance of the decision or its ramifications, but there's nothing arbitrary in my dismissal and nothing that isn't arbitrary in their holding.

Then you agree there was constitutional grounds for SCOTUS to adjudicate upon?

 

[glassjester]

Never said it is a convenient thing to say. That is what you read into what I said.

:doh:

Yes you did. You said it's used as a noun out of convenience and ignorance.

It is biological fact that I have two parents.
This was an objectively true fact, even when I was a fetus.

So Quip is wrong. And if you are insane enough to agree with him (that an unwanted fetus does not have parents), then you're wrong, too.

 

[glassjester]

:doh:
i believe quip just jumped the shark

It seems so.

 

[ok doser]

Yes you did. You said it's used as a noun out of convenience and ignorance.

It is biological fact that I have two parents.
This was an objectively true fact, even when I was a fetus.

So Quip is wrong. And if you are insane enough to agree with him (that an unwanted fetus does not have parents), then you're wrong, too.

when we're referring to an in vitro fertilization, it's common practice to refer to "the biological parents"


to do otherwise would be absurd

 

[glassjester]

when we're referring to an in vitro fertilization, it's common practice to refer to "the biological parents"


to do otherwise would be absurd

Danoh says that makes you ignorant.

The word "parent" is a verb made a nominative for convenience- which is then viewed as a noun by those linguistically ignorant of such things.

 

[Lon]

Parent: PA'RENT, n.
[L. parens, from pario, to produce or bring forth. The regular participle of pario is pariens,and parens is the regular participle of pareo, to appear.]
1. A father or mother; he or she that produces young. The duties of parents to their children are to maintain, protect and educate them.
When parents are wanting in authority, children are wanting in duty.
2. That which produces; cause; source.
Idleness is the parent of vice.
Regular industry is the parent of sobriety.

:think:

 

[Town Heretic]

Then you agree there was constitutional grounds for SCOTUS to adjudicate upon?

It was a question of review and law. I'm not disputing their jurisdiction, but as with Scott, they came down on the wrong side of reason, reflecting social pressures and bias instead. It happens.

 

[Nihilo]

It was a question of review and law. I'm not disputing their jurisdiction, but as with Scott, they came down on the wrong side of reason, reflecting social pressures and bias instead. It happens.

Does the SCOTUS have the authority to overrule (if that's the right term?) a previous SCOTUS's decision?

 

[Eagles Wings]

eagles wings seems to think so

Eagles Wings has flown the coop and may have quipped incorrectly.

 

[quip]

Does the SCOTUS have the authority to overrule (if that's the right term?) a previous SCOTUS's decision?

Stare decisis - "to stand by things decided."

 

[quip]

It was a question of review and law. I'm not disputing their jurisdiction, but as with Scott, they came down on the wrong side of reason, reflecting social pressures and bias instead. It happens.

Bias duly noted.

 

[glassjester]

Bias duly noted.

Do you think the Supreme Court is infallible?

 

[Danoh]

You know very well that the word "parent" is as legitimately a noun as it is a verb.

It is an objective, biological fact that I have two parents. It is not just a convenient thing to say.

Curly on the Three Stooges, concluding the instruction "a can of tomatoes" to actually be referring to the can also :chuckle:

The skit is hilarious because we know that the word "can" in that moment is merely a convenient label for the actual dynamic being described - a can size quantity of tomatoes, not; the actual can...itself.

What is the word Bible a convenient label for - the whole dynamic that is its "collection of books" and all they comprise.

While, on a more serious note - my apology if I offended your sense of your parent's obviously important value to you.

An importance comprised of far and away much much more than any one word could ever even begin to properly convey.

As in the phrases "Happy Father's Day, Dad!" and "Happy Mother's Day, Mom!"

Neither of which ever even begins to do justice to all one feels in that moment, and or is attempting to convey through those ever too inadequate phrases...

Again, my apology to you if my having obviously failed to adequately communicate my intended sense to you offended your obvious sense of your parents' great value to you.

To your dad, and to your mom, bro.

The best toward the three of you.

 

[glassjester]

To your dad, and to your mom, bro.

The best toward the three of you.

And to you and yours. :cheers:

Though I was not personally offended by your words.