DeletedUser
Since you are assuming what you need to establish, your argument is circular.
DeletedUser
You do not need assumptions for rights, they are self-evident and already well established. All I need to establish is that the unborn are human and alive and I have done that.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Hehe, you should probably have read through that link you provided me, in which it states:
"Substantive due process is a considerably different idea than procedural due process. Procedural due process refers to fair legal proceedings. Substantive due process refers to the actual content of the laws themselves. If the "substance" of the law itself is judged to be unconstitutional, then substantive due process has been violated.
Substantive due process has been used by the Court to allow abortion, for example. The Court decided, rightly or wrongly, that there is protection for a woman's right to have an abortion if she wants to in the Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned there."
Substantive due process has been used by the Court to allow abortion, for example. The Court decided, rightly or wrongly, that there is protection for a woman's right to have an abortion if she wants to in the Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned there."
Oop, there it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Yeah courts have never made a wrong decision before...
By that logic slavery was okay, and civil rights, woman's rights, were never violated until the law changed. All rights had to be fought for long before the law recognized them and this will be no different.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Meh, epic fail there Willy.
Robert Bork (lawyer, law professor, ex-circuit judge, Supreme Court nominee under President Reagan), who balks at the Supreme Court's ruling of Roe vs Wade (yet accepts it, as is legally required of all U.S. citizens), and is against abortion, nonetheless states that to argue the unborn are “persons” is utterly without foundation in fact, as they cannot be considered “persons” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, which state,
So, once again, this discussion is about justifying the commission of a crime, a denial of a right both Constitutionally mandated and Supreme Court ruled.
Robert Bork (lawyer, law professor, ex-circuit judge, Supreme Court nominee under President Reagan), who balks at the Supreme Court's ruling of Roe vs Wade (yet accepts it, as is legally required of all U.S. citizens), and is against abortion, nonetheless states that to argue the unborn are “persons” is utterly without foundation in fact, as they cannot be considered “persons” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, which state,
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
According to the Constitution, as unborn are not “persons”, they are not entitled to the protection of their “life, liberty, or property” nor to “equal protection” under the law.So, once again, this discussion is about justifying the commission of a crime, a denial of a right both Constitutionally mandated and Supreme Court ruled.
DeletedUser
The 5th amendment of the constitution states "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I never mentioned the 14th...No one is talking about vigilante justice here only justice, nice try. Also the law at one time would not extend rights to minorities either so your really just appealing to authority and one whose track record with human rights was not always so great.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Perhaps you should reread the last sentence of my post. I was posing the 5th Amendment there. I.e., the definition, within the Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, defines person as it pertains to the 5th Amendment. So, guess what, you're wrong.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nteb71W0Gi0C&printsec=frontcover
http://books.google.com/books?id=nteb71W0Gi0C&printsec=frontcover
DeletedUser
Perhaps you should reread the last sentence of my post. I was posing the 5th Amendment there. I.e., the definition, within the Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, defines person as it pertains to the 5th Amendment. So, guess what, you're wrong.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nteb71W0Gi0C&printsec=frontcover
And guess what you are still appealing to authority and it is still fallacious.
DeletedUser
lol, appealing to authority? Appealing to authority only applies if it's a fallacious argument, which this is not. I stated the Constitution, a judicial review of the Constitution, as well as the Constitutional justification for the Supreme Court ruling, all of which poses the legal precedence that holds a woman has choice, while an unborn does not have Constitutional protections.
But nice try. I'm out, enjoy the forums.
But nice try. I'm out, enjoy the forums.
DeletedUser16008
Keep it on topic folks
DeletedUser
lol, appealing to authority? Appealing to authority only applies if it's a fallacious argument, which this is not. I stated the Constitution, a judicial review of the Constitution, as well as the Constitutional justification for the Supreme Court ruling, all of which poses the legal precedence that holds a woman has choice, while an unborn does not have Constitutional protections.
But nice try. I'm out, enjoy the forums.
You are saying that the US government says abortion is legal therefore it is okay. That is not a logical argument as the US government has denied rights of the people in many cases and this is no different.
The unborn are human they are alive and therefore should be afforded the right to life.
DeletedUser
Oh my gosh - you can't be serious.
A woman is human and alive, so her right to freedom is equally self-evident.
You seriously think that the supremacy of humans to all other animals and of foetuses to women is "self-evident and already well-established"??
All you're saying is "I believe this because it's obvious to me". That is not an argument. This is not a discussion.
&btw you should read "Freakonomics" (I forget the authors' names, but you can look it up). It would turn your world upside-down. In one chapter it demonstrates how the legalisation of abortion in the US subsequently reduced crime rates (in a nutshelll by reducing the number of "problem children").
So there you have it - pro-life is also pro-crime.
Anyway, until you have arguments instead of blind assertions to offer, I am done here. Ta-ra
DeletedUser
The only argument I am asserting is that humans have rights and the only criteria that you should have to meet to enjoy those rights is to be human and alive. Being born does not magically transform you into a human being, you are a human from conception. You may have different phases of development but you are still human.Oh my gosh - you can't be serious.
A woman is human and alive, so her right to freedom is equally self-evident.
You seriously think that the supremacy of humans to all other animals and of foetuses to women is "self-evident and already well-established"??
All you're saying is "I believe this because it's obvious to me". That is not an argument. This is not a discussion.
&btw you should read "Freakonomics" (I forget the authors' names, but you can look it up). It would turn your world upside-down. In one chapter it demonstrates how the legalisation of abortion in the US subsequently reduced crime rates (in a nutshelll by reducing the number of "problem children").
So there you have it - pro-life is also pro-crime.
Anyway, until you have arguments instead of blind assertions to offer, I am done here. Ta-ra
If you cannot understand that simple logic, I cannot help you get smarter.
DeletedUser
Side conversations and arguments between two people should be held in private via the Private Messaging system (or other means) to avoid leading a thread off-topic.
DeletedUser16008
OMG foetuses have absolutely no "rights"... only what the law perceives.... A bloodcell is a alive, a hair follicle is a alive, snot is alive. All by your definition are human at dna level.
Being born btw does transform you into recognised human, a piece of documented property, until then you do not exist other than as part of another human. All this claimed rights stuff is a figment of your imagination, if a woman falls over and loses her child or miscarries I suppose you would call manslaughter ? or maybe youd like to claim its child abuse if the mother drinks alcohol for feeding it to a minor.
In simple terms being human and demanding rights is a lot more than some cells coming together at conception. There is no logic to what you are saying just the usual demands based on nothing, if there was logic it would include life as the rights for all living things, humans are nothing but animals so animals deserve the same, and by logic we as an animal are part of the living world,that includes plants so all things alive should have rights from the seed up, we should protect their rights as a fellow living entity.
Of course to use that logic you have to accept all animals have the same right to life as we humans, its logical. Its not like we appeared out of thin air or that there is any proof to suggest humans are anything other than just another type of ape so no we arnt special, and no being a bean in a womb does not logically follow it has any rights, this is just silly, wishful, made up flawed logical thinking by the usual crowd who really don't care about people at all just selling a stupid ideal in a comic book called the bible, invented by old men and story tellers. Its a publicity stunt by the fruitcake hippocritical morality brigade really nothing more, they have to have something to do since banging on doors threatening hell and damnation dosnt work like it used to.
Oh as for cannibalism id not have a problem with eating human meat any more than another type of animal, its just meat and packaged in a supermarket it looks the same as a piece of pork. We farm other animals so grow meat in the lab as they already can id be comfortable eating human flesh. Its been alive but its not a fully grown sentient and aware human ... so whats the prognosis of human organs grown in the lab ? its human by your definition at the level of DNA so obviously has rights...
Its only logical, and if logic is your measure of being smart then you may thank me for making you that much smarter. Unfortunately logic does not have anything to do with formulating an argument on this topic because you end up with giving rights to a bloodclot, dosnt sound very smart to me.
Being born btw does transform you into recognised human, a piece of documented property, until then you do not exist other than as part of another human. All this claimed rights stuff is a figment of your imagination, if a woman falls over and loses her child or miscarries I suppose you would call manslaughter ? or maybe youd like to claim its child abuse if the mother drinks alcohol for feeding it to a minor.
In simple terms being human and demanding rights is a lot more than some cells coming together at conception. There is no logic to what you are saying just the usual demands based on nothing, if there was logic it would include life as the rights for all living things, humans are nothing but animals so animals deserve the same, and by logic we as an animal are part of the living world,that includes plants so all things alive should have rights from the seed up, we should protect their rights as a fellow living entity.
Of course to use that logic you have to accept all animals have the same right to life as we humans, its logical. Its not like we appeared out of thin air or that there is any proof to suggest humans are anything other than just another type of ape so no we arnt special, and no being a bean in a womb does not logically follow it has any rights, this is just silly, wishful, made up flawed logical thinking by the usual crowd who really don't care about people at all just selling a stupid ideal in a comic book called the bible, invented by old men and story tellers. Its a publicity stunt by the fruitcake hippocritical morality brigade really nothing more, they have to have something to do since banging on doors threatening hell and damnation dosnt work like it used to.
Oh as for cannibalism id not have a problem with eating human meat any more than another type of animal, its just meat and packaged in a supermarket it looks the same as a piece of pork. We farm other animals so grow meat in the lab as they already can id be comfortable eating human flesh. Its been alive but its not a fully grown sentient and aware human ... so whats the prognosis of human organs grown in the lab ? its human by your definition at the level of DNA so obviously has rights...
Its only logical, and if logic is your measure of being smart then you may thank me for making you that much smarter. Unfortunately logic does not have anything to do with formulating an argument on this topic because you end up with giving rights to a bloodclot, dosnt sound very smart to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser34315
Again.
A risk of dying or getting hurt by pregnancy complications=<25%.
Chance of the baby dying in an abortion= 100%.
Foetuses are humans. They are simply humans still living in the womb.
Mocking the bible is irrelevant to your argument, and simply unnecessary.
A risk of dying or getting hurt by pregnancy complications=<25%.
Chance of the baby dying in an abortion= 100%.
Foetuses are humans. They are simply humans still living in the womb.
Mocking the bible is irrelevant to your argument, and simply unnecessary.
DeletedUser
All your examples are only a part of the whole being. The unborn are complete packages of what a human is and they are alive.
Manslaughter would imply that the mother was criminally negligent. As far as drinking alcohol (or any drugs for that manner) when pregnant, yes it should be a crime.
Humans are not the same as animals. The cognitive abilities of a child far surpass that of any animal.
Animals are not the same as humans; however we do have the responsibility to treat them with a certain amount of respect for life.Of course to use that logic you have to accept all animals have the same right to life as we humans, its logical. Its not like we appeared out of thin air or that there is any proof to suggest humans are anything other than just another type of ape so no we arnt special, and no being a bean in a womb does not logically follow it has any rights, this is just silly, wishful, made up flawed logical thinking by the usual crowd who really don't care about people at all just selling a stupid ideal in a comic book called the bible, invented by old men and story tellers. Its a publicity stunt by the fruitcake hippocritical morality brigade really nothing more, they have to have something to do since banging on doors threatening hell and damnation dosnt work like it used to.
Cannibalism is really not healthy, it can be a source for disease.
No, no one said anything about giving rights to a blood-clot, I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.
DeletedUser
i think abortion is right cause we shouldnt have babies without mommies and or daddies who grow up to be criminals or anything. we especially dont need unready mommies.
DeletedUser
Two reasons.
1. Use protection.
2. Say the words 'NO.'
I only think abortions are right - I agree with the church - is when the woman was raped or a life saving operation (heart surgery for example) endangers the life of the baby.
DeletedUser
but do you really have say over the one whos gonna have the baby? i like that you have an opinion and are strong on it. but lets look at facts. you wouldnt have an abortion unless it was, like you said, cause of rape or a life saving operaton. But why should you demand that someone willing to think about killing their own baby should have it? i think its good that they dont have a child. i wouldnt trust them with one, and adoption isnt as popular as you think it is (unless the baby is from a forigne country like Africa or Asia).
it isnt your sin if someone else kills theyr baby. they are not your naybor. theyre someone living far away in a completely differnt part of the country.