George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Au contraire mon ami...
If your constitution says I am American, then great!
I'll take it because our constitution is a mess.
Yours is way better.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
Au contraire mon ami...
If your constitution says I am American, then great!
I'll take it because our constitution is a mess.
Yours is way better.
That's your strawman, not mine. Do you reserve the right to kill Canadians if and when the desire may strike you?
glassjester
Well-known member
There's some stuff worth fixing in ours, too.
glassjester
Well-known member
Nope. You said the unborn are not granted the right to life because they are not defined as "persons" by our Constitution.
Your evidence being the constitutional definition of citizens as "persons born or naturalized in the United States." (hereafter - PBNUS)
Well, if the unborn have no right to life because they are not PBNUS, well then Canadians don't have the right to life either.
Or... do they? On what basis can you claim that Canadians' right to life is protected by the US Constitution?
glassjester
Well-known member
It's also worth pointing out that the Constitution does not say that the only "persons" are those born.
Quell your ignorance of the matter and your flaws in logic will be revealed. :idunno:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Be careful what you wish for.
The founding fathers were incredible men.
Head and shoulders above any we have seen in modern times.
Our freedoms are being eroded here much faster because the kind of protections you have were not built in.
glassjester
Well-known member
Enlighten me.
Enlighten yourself!
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you... not know why Canadians in the US have the right to life?
glassjester
Well-known member
I'd say they're protected by federal and state laws against murder, which do not distinguish between citizen and non-citizen victims.
...Or by a few Supreme Court rulings which extend constitutional rights to non-citizens.
glassjester
Well-known member
So where's my flaw?
The right to life is not dependent on citizenship. So why should the Constitution's exclusion of the unborn as citizens preclude their right to life?
It has nothing to do with citizenship. Again, that was your straw man.
Rather, it was a constitutional example (one of several) where "person" was used to denote rights
Here's part of the quoted section you conveniently chose to ignore:
| But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word [person] is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. |
glassjester
Well-known member
Nor does it indicate that the unborn aren't persons. Does it?
It doesn't indicate that they're included in the designation either.
I contend that fetus and mother aren't quite as equal to you outside the abortion scenario.
Let's try a hypothetical:
We have an in vitro lab on fire. In this burning lab we have 100 human embryos in a cart of vials waiting for implantation into their human host. Also, we have an 11-day-old infant in this same burning lab.
Now, you can only save one from the flames. Which one would you save?
Which one would the vast majority of people save?
Why do you think this is the case?
WizardofOz
New member
Still playing the same baseless hypothetical?
A burning lab has an 11-day-old infant and a 100-year-old woman.
Now, you can only save one from the flames. Which one would you save?
Which one would the vast majority of people save?
Do you understand the absolute irrelevance of your hypothetical yet?
glassjester
Well-known member
Probably the infant.
Because most people irrationally believe that the unborn aren't human beings, but just "blobs of tissue."