majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jul 25, 2010 1:49am
Where is your proof that the writers of the constitution and authors of the 14th amendment did not consider a fetus human? I would like to see some sourced commentary on that. Because they sure as hell did not put it the constitution.isadore;431584 wrote:Throughout history the informed have realized that those of different races were as human as the rest of us. Historically, under both English common law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person. The writers of the Constitution and the authors of the 14th amendment did not consider the fetus human.
In the declaration of Independence our founders stated. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founders recognized the right to life is inalienable because they do not come from humans, but the creator of life. Because humans can't create themselves, they can't justly deprive their fellow man of those rights. Government can't justly deny its people their inalienable rights. What just government should do is secure these inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, especially to the weakest among us.
James Wilson a signatory to both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I don't see him mentioning anything about a "fetus" not being human.
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.
James Wilson, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals" (1790-1792).
Wilson is referring to the limited medical knowledge of his time. It was assumed at the time that life could definitely be proven to exist with the quickening of the infant in his mother’s womb. You will see this term used in English common law. The term as used back then was the mother was "quick with child". It refers to the time in pregnancy when a women first feels the motion of the child in her womb. Though many argued conception as the beginning of life (as would I) English common law concurred that assuredly life had begun at this point.
William Blackstone (a well respected voice on English common law) in his commentary of the quickening gives his observation.
“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…"
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Henry Bracton. A renowned father of English common law. Likely who Blackstone was referring to as "ancient law".
If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the foetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide.
Henry Bracton, 2 On The Laws and Customs of England, 341 (S.E. Thorne trans., George E. Woodbine ed. 1968) (1250 A.D. or thereabouts)
Note that Blackstone shows the progression of common law from homicide to misdemeanor. He describes that misdemeanor as a very heinous crime. How can a misdemeanor be a very heinous crime? His commentary suggests he thought the present laws of his time had run afoul. He appears to be in agreement with the ancient law.
It is no surprise to me that one who can't back up his argument with facts resorts to baseless accusations. Where did I say women should not work outside the home? Where did I say their function is a baby incubator? I said no such thing and disagree with both.isadore;431584 wrote:A group known to be human but consistently denied rights in almost every society has been women. How dare they control their own bodies. How dare they leave the home and get jobs. Their function is to be baby incubator. To compare women to slave owners is both outlandish and chauvinistic. Through much of human history women have been held down, repressed by our culture, not given the opportunity to have anything resembling their full set of rights. The attitudes reflect in your statements. The most important step in women having rights is their control of their own body. Their right to control their bodes overrules that of anyone or anything else.
As for the state telling women how to control their own bodies it is quite common in law. A women can't sell her body for sexual services. A women can't inject certain drugs into her body that the state determines unlawful. The list can go on and on. It applies to both sexes. The state has many limits to what we can do with our own bodies.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jul 25, 2010 3:20am
The Supreme Court of the United States as it existed in 1973. The federal government and those state governments that would have allowed the practice.isadore;431584 wrote:You believe because the Nazis were killing thousands everyday lethal force should be used to stop them. You believe every day thousands of people are being killed in America by abortion supported by our government. And who do you hold responsible for this supposed slaughterr
That is because there is a time for war to end injustice and a time for peaceful negotiations to end injustice. One can argue where that line is drawn and one must be wise in drawing that line.isadore;431584 wrote:So I guess you don't place that high a value on fetuses as on real human life. Your ready to give the Nazis their just reward, death. But even though the abortion death far surpasses the Nazis toll and that those "murders" are taking place right here, you will act right now to stop it as you would to stop the Nazis.
As the nazi's rose to power in the 1930's governments of that time knew the risks involved in stopping their ascension to power at the time. They were fearful of using deadly force at that time because they believed the populous could be fickle in backing their use of said deadly force. Even when the nazi's rounded up Jews during kristallnacht and sent them to concentration camps no foreign power intervened.
It took a German invasion of Poland to force England and France to act with deadly force to stop the nazi regime in Germany. The USA could not secure the backing of its populous to use deadly force against the nazi regime until Japan used deadly force against our nation at Pearl Harbor. When you mean to kill your fellow man to force him to stop an injustice you better have your balls screwed on right.
Concerning the injustice of slavery John Brown is case in point. He chose to use deadly force unwisely. The time for war had not yet arrived. There was still the hope for a peaceful solution. As a result he was hung as a traitor by the same federal government that in few short years would use armed force to achieve their objectives over the southern states.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jul 25, 2010 12:22pm
Writerbuckeye;431792 wrote:The racial part about her was fine -- your use of it to try and break down the arguments of posters who disagreed with you was not. It's tiresome, trite and quite honestly...boring. You did spice it up a bit when you switched to sexism as abortion became a topic, so kudos on that, I guess. But mostly liberals like you are a one-trick pony when they "debate" a topic.
I realize for many factual arguments are tiresome and boring. I know the unvarnished truth can to some seem boring. My inability to spice up historical and observed fact to your taste speaks more to my limitations as a writer than to the obvious truth of my statements. Sorry. Many prefer well written fiction that can put a sympathetic sheen to true feeling of many member of the states rights movement and in some supporters of the tea party and in retrograde attitudes expressed toward woman’s right to control her own body. Several of these people might prefer the writings of Thomas Dixon and Thomas Luther Pierce. While having no relationship to the truth their writing would play well with the deeply held beliefs of many of these folks.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jul 25, 2010 1:30pm
majorsparks wrote:Where is your proof that the writers of the constitution and authors of the 14th amendment did not consider a fetus human? I would like to see some sourced commentary on that. Because they sure as hell did not put it the constitution.
In the declaration of Independence our founders stated. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founders recognized the right to life is inalienable because they do not come from humans, but the creator of life. Because humans can't create themselves, they can't justly deprive their fellow man of those rights. Government can't justly deny its people their inalienable rights. What just government should do is secure these inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, especially to the weakest among us.
James Wilson a signatory to both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I don't see him mentioning anything about a "fetus" not being human.
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.
James Wilson, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals" (1790-1792).
Wilson is referring to the limited medical knowledge of his time. It was assumed at the time that life could definitely be proven to exist with the quickening of the infant in his mother’s womb. You will see this term used in English common law. The term as used back then was the mother was "quick with child". It refers to the time in pregnancy when a women first feels the motion of the child in her womb. Though many argued conception as the beginning of life (as would I) English common law concurred that assuredly life had begun at this point.
William Blackstone (a well respected voice on English common law) in his commentary of the quickening gives his observation.
“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…"
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Henry Bracton. A renowned father of English common law. Likely who Blackstone was referring to as "ancient law".
If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the foetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide.
Henry Bracton, 2 On The Laws and Customs of England, 341 (S.E. Thorne trans., George E. Woodbine ed. 1968) (1250 A.D. or thereabouts)
Note that Blackstone shows the progression of common law from homicide to misdemeanor. He describes that misdemeanor as a very heinous crime. How can a misdemeanor be a very heinous crime? His commentary suggests he thought the present laws of his time had run afoul. He appears to be in agreement with the ancient law.
It is no surprise to me that one who can't back up his argument with facts resorts to baseless accusations. Where did I say women should not work outside the home? Where did I say their function is a baby incubator? I said no such thing and disagree with both.
As for the state telling women how to control their own bodies it is quite common in law. A women can't sell her body for sexual services. A women can't inject certain drugs into her body that the state determines unlawful. The list can go on and on. It applies to both sexes. The state has many limits to what we can do with our own bodies.
“The proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law”
http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html
The termination of the fetus was not treated as the death of a human being. Was not murder, was not manslaugter.
If Mr. Wilson believed so strongly in protecting the fetus why didn’t he attempt to write it into law. He was a member of the Continental Congress, or write it into the Constitution or into his judicial opinions when he was a Supreme Court Justice. I am sure you will try to argue discussing what a person is never came up, really. But for him it did, he is the framer who introduced the hateful proposal of counting a slave as 3/5th a person to the Constitutional Convention which of course was written into Article I. Why not give the “stirring’ fetus some label as a person or may even 1/8 th a person. HE did not seem to think that was of any significance to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson
What does get mentioned in Article II of the Constitution is that to be President you must be “born’ an American citizen. And in 1866 when the 14th Amendment was proposed and knowledge of gestation was greater, how did they describe the qualifications to be an American citizen, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Not conceived, not quickened but born.
According to the consistent opinion over that time, the woman was the person, and not the fetus. And Roe v Wade using that history defended her right to control her own body. So no matter how much you might wish to roll back the clock to deny women that most basic of rights the historical facts are on their side. Sorry chief you cannot keep them permanently barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. And I know that to many theocrats this may sound shocking but adults should be able to sell their sexual services and use drugs if they wish. Two laws limited rights are not a justification for a third.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jul 25, 2010 2:06pm
The Supreme Court still exists and abortion is still legal in all 50 states. And according to the above statistics 4000 termination of fetuses still take place every day. So there is continuing responsibility for this supposed slaughter. This “mass killing” is not taking place 5000 miles away. It is happening right here in America. Of course many Germans claim they knew nothing about the Holocaust. But you seem to be very informed about the supposed extermination. 4000 a day and what do you do, peaceful negotiations. I guess you don’t put a very high value on a fetus. At least the Germans claimed ignorance.majorspark;431840 wrote:The Supreme Court of the United States as it existed in 1973. The federal government and those state governments that would have allowed the practice.
That is because there is a time for war to end injustice and a time for peaceful negotiations to end injustice. One can argue where that line is drawn and one must be wise in drawing that line.
As the nazi's rose to power in the 1930's governments of that time knew the risks involved in stopping their ascension to power at the time. They were fearful of using deadly force at that time because they believed the populous could be fickle in backing their use of said deadly force. Even when the nazi's rounded up Jews during kristallnacht and sent them to concentration camps no foreign power intervened.
It took a German invasion of Poland to force England and France to act with deadly force to stop the nazi regime in Germany. The USA could not secure the backing of its populous to use deadly force against the nazi regime until Japan used deadly force against our nation at Pearl Harbor. When you mean to kill your fellow man to force him to stop an injustice you better have your balls screwed on right.
Concerning the injustice of slavery John Brown is case in point. He chose to use deadly force unwisely. The time for war had not yet arrived. There was still the hope for a peaceful solution. As a result he was hung as a traitor by the same federal government that in few short years would use armed force to achieve their objectives over the southern states.
Oh yes, John Brown. He was not tried for treason against the United States. He was tried in a state court for leading a negro insurrection, murder and treason against the state of Virginia. Treason against a state of which he was not a citizen. Ironies of history he was captured by Robert E. Lee and J.E.B. Stuart, who in the not to distant future would who commit treason against the United States; states righters of course.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/browntrial.html
gibby08
Posts: 1,581
Jul 25, 2010 3:14pm
I have a question for all you pro-lifers
Let's say you and your wife become pregnant. You go if for a checkup and the doc tells you that if your wife carries this child to term,she WILL die in childbirth. You are presented with two choices...
1.Your wife can have an abortion and save her life
2.She can have the baby and die
Which would you choose,save you wife's life and live the rest of your life with her and be able to have another baby,or have the baby but lose the person you love the most?
Let's say you and your wife become pregnant. You go if for a checkup and the doc tells you that if your wife carries this child to term,she WILL die in childbirth. You are presented with two choices...
1.Your wife can have an abortion and save her life
2.She can have the baby and die
Which would you choose,save you wife's life and live the rest of your life with her and be able to have another baby,or have the baby but lose the person you love the most?
Bio-Hazzzzard
Posts: 1,027
Jul 25, 2010 4:28pm
Let me share our story with you Gibby.gibby08;432079 wrote:I have a question for all you pro-lifers
Let's say you and your wife become pregnant. You go if for a checkup and the doc tells you that if your wife carries this child to term,she WILL die in childbirth. You are presented with two choices...
1.Your wife can have an abortion and save her life
2.She can have the baby and die
Which would you choose,save you wife's life and live the rest of your life with her and be able to have another baby,or have the baby but lose the person you love the most?
My wife was very ill every day of her pregnancy and eventually hospitalized for several weeks. The doctor had told me that there was a chance that my wife could die before the baby came which her term was about 14 weeks away.
This wasn't a tough decision for us and we took our chances knowing what the outcome could be.
Three weeks later my wife's situation worsened and was taken by helicopter to another hospital where they had ran more tests to see what needed to be done. About an hour after my wife arrived they literally beat the doors down and said we have to deliver the baby now. At 2lbs and 1oz my daughter was born 11 weeks early and today she is a healthy 5 year old. I asked the doc that delivered our daughter if my wife was in danger and she had stated that my wife had about an hour to live if they had not taken the baby which was the cause of her illness. My wife spent about a week in the hospital and my daughter 2 months and we traveled the hour to the hospital every day to see our daughter. My wife BTW is alive and an awesome mother.
Pro-lifers, hell yeah, we wouldn't have a daughter today if we followed this ignorant philosophy that you have.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jul 25, 2010 4:45pm
Gibby,
I've said it before numerous times: I'm not totally against abortion, as I think it should be an available procedure for use in extreme situations.
I AM however vehemently against abortion as a method of birth control. Which, sadly is the reason for the majority of abortions.
^^^That is what I call infanticide.
I've said it before numerous times: I'm not totally against abortion, as I think it should be an available procedure for use in extreme situations.
I AM however vehemently against abortion as a method of birth control. Which, sadly is the reason for the majority of abortions.
^^^That is what I call infanticide.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jul 25, 2010 4:53pm
CenterBHSFan;432138 wrote:Gibby,
I've said it before numerous times: I'm not totally against abortion, as I think it should be an available procedure for use in extreme situations.
I AM however vehemently against abortion as a method of birth control. Which, sadly is the reason for the majority of abortions.
^^^That is what I call infanticide.
After years of weighing this issue, I find myself pretty much where you are.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jul 25, 2010 5:24pm
Writerbuckeye;432142 wrote:After years of weighing this issue, I find myself pretty much where you are.
My conclusion/thoughts on abortion didn't come easy, Writer.
Back in my liberal days (yep, they happened) I was totally pro-choice and "it's the woman's body" and all that blah blah.
But, I came to realize that that was MY way of not really having to look at it, think about it, or feel anything towards it.
One other thing, and this is just totally about me, it's not meant to be implied towards anybody else. Looking back at my liberal views of abortion, I also realize that during that same time period, I was about as far away from God as I was my whole life. So for me, there was that correlation to contend with also. But then, that's another topic
..................................
Back on topic: Obama's administration clearly had a knee-jerk reaction to Shirley Sherrod. Now, I don't think that her life is hopelessly wrecked. Her carreer with the government might be over, but I wouldn't be suprised to see a book/made for tv movie come out of it. She'll do just fine I think.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jul 25, 2010 5:50pm
I'm opposed to abortion in every instance except verified direct threat to the life of the mother. And that verification needs to be independent analysis of the circumstances by at least two specialists who have done due diligence to confirm the diagnosis.gibby08;432079 wrote:I have a question for all you pro-lifers
Let's say you and your wife become pregnant. You go if for a checkup and the doc tells you that if your wife carries this child to term,she WILL die in childbirth. You are presented with two choices...
1.Your wife can have an abortion and save her life
2.She can have the baby and die
Which would you choose,save you wife's life and live the rest of your life with her and be able to have another baby,or have the baby but lose the person you love the most?
As Bio-Hazzzard pointed out above, a simple "your wife's gonna die" isn't good enough.
CenterBHSFan;432155 wrote:Back on topic: Obama's administration clearly had a knee-jerk reaction to Shirley Sherrod. Now, I don't think that her life is hopelessly wrecked. Her carreer with the government might be over, but I wouldn't be suprised to see a book/made for tv movie come out of it. She'll do just fine I think.
I agree. This could be the best thing to ever happen to Sherrod.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jul 26, 2010 10:56am
CenterBHSFan;432155 wrote:My conclusion/thoughts on abortion didn't come easy, Writer.
Back in my liberal days (yep, they happened) I was totally pro-choice and "it's the woman's body" and all that blah blah.
But, I came to realize that that was MY way of not really having to look at it, think about it, or feel anything towards it.
One other thing, and this is just totally about me, it's not meant to be implied towards anybody else. Looking back at my liberal views of abortion, I also realize that during that same time period, I was about as far away from God as I was my whole life. So for me, there was that correlation to contend with also. But then, that's another topic
..................................
Back on topic: Obama's administration clearly had a knee-jerk reaction to Shirley Sherrod. Now, I don't think that her life is hopelessly wrecked. Her carreer with the government might be over, but I wouldn't be suprised to see a book/made for tv movie come out of it. She'll do just fine I think.
Like you, I was extremely liberal during most of that time, having been disillusioned by politicians because of Watergate, while at home I had my how issues with God and the church, so I also fell away. Those wounds have healed (on both sides) and being older and more mature, I realize my emotional reactions weren't good for me or fair to the issues at-hand.
As for Sherrod, by my count she has close to 30 years already in the system. I don't see her losing her federal pension (she has to be close to retirement age) because of all this. In fact, I can see her getting a sweetheart deal before all is closed on this matter.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jul 26, 2010 4:21pm
Writer, I agree, no doubt about it.
Even if she's not the age of retirement, they'll give her a nice package anyway, as an apology and publicity.
Even if she's not the age of retirement, they'll give her a nice package anyway, as an apology and publicity.
gibby08
Posts: 1,581
Jul 26, 2010 4:25pm
As am ICenterBHSFan;432138 wrote:Gibby,
I've said it before numerous times: I'm not totally against abortion, as I think it should be an available procedure for use in extreme situations.
I AM however vehemently against abortion as a method of birth control. Which, sadly is the reason for the majority of abortions.
^^^That is what I call infanticide.
gibby08
Posts: 1,581
Jul 26, 2010 4:29pm
Bio-Hazzzzard;432131 wrote:Let me share our story with you Gibby.
My wife was very ill every day of her pregnancy and eventually hospitalized for several weeks. The doctor had told me that there was a chance that my wife could die before the baby came which her term was about 14 weeks away.
This wasn't a tough decision for us and we took our chances knowing what the outcome could be.
Three weeks later my wife's situation worsened and was taken by helicopter to another hospital where they had ran more tests to see what needed to be done. About an hour after my wife arrived they literally beat the doors down and said we have to deliver the baby now. At 2lbs and 1oz my daughter was born 11 weeks early and today she is a healthy 5 year old. I asked the doc that delivered our daughter if my wife was in danger and she had stated that my wife had about an hour to live if they had not taken the baby which was the cause of her illness. My wife spent about a week in the hospital and my daughter 2 months and we traveled the hour to the hospital every day to see our daughter. My wife BTW is alive and an awesome mother.
Pro-lifers, hell yeah, we wouldn't have a daughter today if we followed this ignorant philosophy that you have.
Congrats on having a health child,but I for damn sure wouldn't have taken the chance of losing my wife.My philosophy is ignorant because I would rather save my wife and be able to have another child with her?
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Jul 26, 2010 7:14pm
Writerbuckeye;431158 wrote:I have to laugh at people who put so much faith in the benevolence of a huge federal government -- when history has shown us time and again that people tend to die (in very large numbers) when governments get too powerful. Everything you believe the federal government can give you, it can also take away, and oh so very much more.
Don't think it can't happen here.
Our government's military is the largest and most powerful military in the world and the amount of drones and non-human elements capable of mass murder are only increasing. The right demagogue could take our military in its present form and crush all of us with extreme efficiency and prejudice yet it is the official policy of the party you adhere to, that fears big government that our military cannot be cut or decreased in size....to decrease the size of our military would be "harmful to national security"; yet following your statement, you would think allowing it to stay so big or get bigger would be what, indeed, would be harmful to our national security.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Jul 26, 2010 7:24pm
believer;431495 wrote:The fact that a human being has yet to slide out the woman's vagina does not make the termination of that human life any less despicable or criminal than the taking of human life outside the womb.
Despite what SCOTUS (circa 1973) says, it's murder contrary to the feel good euphemisms of "freedom of choice", "fetus", and "termination."
I will never understand the political mindset that cheers on the taking of innocent unborn human life and label it "freedom of choice" while actively protesting the execution of convicted murderers and label that "cruel and inhuman."
Even if it's a human being...just like with sentient and conscious beings, not all killings of human beings constitute murder. In most jurisdictions but the most liberal, feel-good, puppy dog and rainbow ones, killing an unwanted trespasser within your home can be a justifiable homicide. If that's true of a piece of property made of wood and vinyl siding...it certainly could also be true of personal property composed of flesh and uterus.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jul 26, 2010 7:25pm
I wonder if we do (hypotheticaly - let's say tomorrow) cut down the size of our military, how many people would be added to the UE lines?
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Jul 26, 2010 7:26pm
Sorry BS, but the comparison of wood and vinyl to a BABY doesn't cut it with me.BoatShoes;432982 wrote:Even if it's a human being...just like with sentient and conscious beings, not all killings of human beings constitute murder. In most jurisdictions but the most liberal, feel-good, puppy dog and rainbow ones, killing an unwanted trespasser within your home can be a justifiable homicide. If that's true of a piece of property made of wood and vinyl siding...it certainly could also be true of personal property composed of flesh and uterus.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Jul 26, 2010 7:35pm
CenterBHSFan;432984 wrote:Sorry BS, but the comparison of wood and vinyl to a BABY doesn't cut it with me.
well the comparison is between killing an unwanted trespasser in a home; which pro-gun rights conservatives typically support (if we're to stereotype)....with the killing of an unwanted trespasser in a uterus; which pro-"life" conservatives typically don't support (if we're to stereotype). If they're both human beings...you think you can kill an unwanted trespasser in the less intimate private property; one that feels pain....yet don't think you can kill an unwanted trespasser in an infinitely more intimate space of private property...and this human being doesn't feel any pain or experience the world in any way.
(most abortions are performed in the first trimester and the fetus doesn't even have the biological capacity to experience any pain before 20 weeks and probably can't feel anything as late as 28 weeks...at all....I've cited the literature before....either way; suppose my argument only applies to first trimester abortions....I will let you make third trimester ones illegal....so let's not waste our time talking about whether the "baby" feels pain because it doesn't feel absolutely anything in the first trimester).
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 26, 2010 7:36pm
He is comparing wood and vinyl to a woman. His comparison fails because in cases other than rape the woman permitted entry, therefore there is no trespass.but the comparison of wood and vinyl to a BABY doesn't cut it with me.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Jul 26, 2010 7:39pm
Prescott;432992 wrote:He is comparing wood and vinyl to a woman. His comparison fails because in cases other than rape the woman permitted entry, therefore there is no trespass.
she permitted a dick...not the fetus. I can desire to get slammed with a wang and not desire the foreseeable consequence of pregnancy just like I can desire a boob job and not desire the foreeseable consequence of a huge titty scar. I can permit somebody in my house but not want him to leave a kid for me to raise.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 26, 2010 7:44pm
She permitted entry and she supplied the egg as well as the womb. No trespass.She was complicit in the act, knowing full well that is how babies are made.she permitted a dick...not the fetus.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Jul 26, 2010 7:46pm
it would be nice if all these prolife types were as worried about the protection of children after they were born as they are for the fetus, those children's right to proper nutrition, healthcare, housing and an education.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 26, 2010 7:58pm
It would be nicer if the irresponsible people who don't practice safe sex would learn about and use birth control, thus eliminating their need to murder the unbornit would be nice if all these prolife types were as worried about the protection of children after they were born as they are for the fetus,