Posted on 06/10/2004 2:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.
Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
"We disagree on when an embryo is constitutionally a human being, correct?" No, not correct. The status of human being is not a Constitutional concept, it is a biological concept. Now if you want to discuss citizenship designation as per the Constitution, I'll defer to your expertise regarding the Constitution. Personhood is a completely different concept that overlaps both the designation as human being and citizenship.
Your statement that the word "born" has anything to do with "capable of being born" is nowhere in the Constitution. The definition of "born" is not that elastic.
The USSC was using common sense. At some point an embryo/fetus becomes a functional person, "viable", -- with equal rights to its mother.
The mere fact that you reach so far as to twist your thinking around this "definition" should tell you that you know that you are lying to yourself.
I don't lie about our Constitution. -- Don't need to, as its intent is clear. Our individual liberties are to be protected.
The onus is on you to justify your discrimination between one member of the species and another, not the other way around.
You want to 'discriminate' against a woman from the moment of conception, and have government place her unviable embryo's supposed 'rights' over her own, -- not me.
No, not correct. The status of human being is not a Constitutional concept, it is a biological concept.
One concept does not exclude the other.
Now if you want to discuss citizenship designation as per the Constitution, I'll defer to your expertise regarding the Constitution. Personhood is a completely different concept that overlaps both the designation as human being and citizenship.
So you believe/claim. Your belief does not authorize our government to violate a pregnant womans right to equal prtotection under law.
We all know you are firmly 'pro-choice'. The issue being discussed has moved to 'constitutionally define embryo' ... as per your desire to use some Constitutional argument to now disenfranchise the embryonic age of the human being. The status as 'human being' is not a constitutionally confined question ... there must be a component of moral principle in order to discuss the status of the human embryo. Citizenship is definitely a constitutional question. Personhood is not and status as a human being is definitely beyond even penumbral vagaries.
When you assert, "At some point an embryo/fetus becomes a functional person, "viable", -- with equal rights to its mother." Define 'functional person', to remove any ambiquity please. Science has shown that the unborn are capable of many of the 'functions' of born individuals, even well before 'viability'.
I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral arguement is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with.
Moral beliefs are at the core of our system. I don't see where it divisive at all in a harmful way. I'd much rather see the question debated on moral grounds, rather than see the debate itself rejected as morally based.
Fine, argue the debate on your concept of morality.
But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo.
I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral argument is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with.
-jackson-
Thanks.. -- Its rare to arrive at ~any~ point of agreement on this type of thread. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Anyone here care to comment on why we can't agree on at least the constitutional principles involved, as above?
Do you still insist that status as human being is a constitutionally defineable notion? Are you still insisting that human personhood is a constitutionally defineable notion?... I'm not arguing that the Constitution defines citizenship, and I've not been arguing along religious lines, so if you're going to try such bait and switch, don't bother pinging me to your posts along such lines.
I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral argument is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with.
-jackson-
Thanks.. -- Its rare to arrive at ~any~ point of agreement on this type of thread. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Anyone here care to comment on why we can't agree on at least the constitutional principles involved, as agreed above?
Do you still insist that status as human being is a constitutionally defineable notion? Are you still insisting that human personhood is a constitutionally defineable notion?...
'We' wrote a Constitution dedicated to the principle that individual people have inalienable rights that cannot be violated. Pregnant women are individual people with an embryo. -- The question of when that embryo/fetus attains 'personhood' has been addressed. -- Its necessarily defined as being at 'viability'.
I'm not arguing that the Constitution defines citizenship, and I've not been arguing along religious lines, so if you're going to try such bait and switch, don't bother pinging me to your posts along such lines.
Suit yourself. - In effect by doing so you are refusing to accept our Constitutions 'rule of law' principles.
I am not saying that the amendment is wrong about the definition of "born": I am saying that you are wrong that the word "born" implies "being capable of being born." There is no evidence in fact that this is the definition of "born," or has ever been the definition. You need to back that up with references as there is no evidence that such an "intent" (as you call it) was held in 1865-66 by Congress or the States which ratified the 14th. The USSC had nothing to do with writing the 14th Amendment.
When two people have the equal right to life - actually the negative right not to be killed - there is no disparity: neither has more rights and equal protection of each right to life does not place one over the other. That is the definition of "equal." There is no discrimination.
You introduce the idea that inalienable rights are aquired by viability or function which is not even in the R v W decision. R v W asserts *the States'* interests in the protection of the child, based on the faulty logic that no one knew when life begins, when, indeed, it was and is known:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150807/posts?page=95#95
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=53&BISKIT=2920801063
The onus is still on you to defend your discrimination between one member of the species and another.
You are mixing two concepts - citizenship and the fact of being human. The species of an individual or an organism is not a Constitutional matter.
You are also making a false dilemma by asserting that the status of the human embryo as having the right to life is a Judeo-Christian moral and that, as such, it "goes against our constitutional principles."
From the Supreme Court of New Jersey, "IN THE MATTER OF KAREN QUINLAN, AN ALLEGED INCOMPETENT"
http://academic.udayton.edu/LawrenceUlrich/quinlan.htm
""n1 The importance of the preservation of life is memorialized in various organic documents. The Declaration of Independence states as self-evident truths "that all men * * * are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal is inherent in the Constitution of the United States. It is explicitly recognized in our Constitution of 1947 which provides for "certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life * * *." N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 1. Our State government is established to protect such rights, N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 2, and, acting through the Attorney General (N.J.S.A. 52:17A-4(h)), it enforces them.""
Our Constitution defines who is 'legally;' a human being, and afforded equal protection of the law. - It says [read the 14th] you must 'born' [defined as being capable of being born]. - Viable. --- Embryos are not yet 'viable'.
The USSC was using common sense. At some point an embryo/fetus becomes a functional person, "viable", -- with equal rights to its mother.
I am not saying that the amendment is wrong about the definition of "born": I am saying that you are wrong that the word "born" implies "being capable of being born." There is no evidence in fact that this is the definition of "born," or has ever been the definition.
The USSC used 'viablity' as a common sense legal point/term we ALL can use.
You need to back that up with references as there is no evidence that such an "intent" (as you call it) was held in 1865-66 by Congress or the States which ratified the 14th. The USSC had nothing to do with writing the 14th Amendment.
No one has ~ever~ said it did.
When two people have the equal right to life - actually the negative right not to be killed - there is no disparity: neither has more rights and equal protection of each right to life does not place one over the other.
Before the point of viability in a pregnant woman, '~personhood~' is the issue. A woman aborting her own unviable embryo cannot be charged with the murder of a person, as there is no person, yet.
The onus is still on you to defend your discrimination between one member of the species and another.
You want to 'discriminate' against a woman from the moment of conception, and have government place her unviable embryo's supposed 'rights' over her own, -- not me.
I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral argument is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with. -jackson-
Thanks.. -- Its rare to arrive at ~any~ point of agreement on this type of thread. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Anyone here care to comment on why we can't agree on at least the constitutional principles involved, as above?
You are mixing two concepts - citizenship and the fact of being human. The species of an individual or an organism is not a Constitutional matter.
The legal point when 'personhood' begins becomes a constitutional matter when an abortion is charged as being murder.
You are also making a false dilemma by asserting that the status of the human embryo as having the right to life is a Judeo-Christian moral and that, as such, it "goes against our constitutional principles."
It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.
You obfuscated, "But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo." Since when are moral convictions the sole property of religious beliefs? Nice try though ...
If the embryos are completely disenfranchised, then the fate of these alive individual human beings is completely discretionary for the holders of these beings and their demise is completely arbitrary based on the utilitarian purposes of the holders at any age in the gestational process. If the embryonic individuals are however perceived as human beings worthy of protection, your ardent assertions as to the complete disenfranchisement of womb bound (in a woman's body) alive individual human beings in favor of only the woman's rights regarding her bodily integrity (though the alive unborn are their not by any effort on their part and except in cases of rape, there at the invitation of the woman) begins to collapse upon its own mis-characterizations of the ones being disenfranchised so that they may be dealt with by the serial killing abortionists.
BTTT!!!!!!!
I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral argument is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with. -jackson-
Thanks.. -- Its rare to arrive at ~any~ point of agreement on this type of thread. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Anyone here care to comment on why we can't agree on at least the constitutional principles involved, as agreed above?
You obfuscated, "But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo."
No 'obfuscating'/confusion in that line at all. Do you deny that you want our governments to outlaw abortion? In my opinion, prohibitions on early term abortions are unconstitutional. - Why is that confusing to you?
Since when are moral convictions the sole property of religious beliefs? Nice try though ..
Nice 'try' at what? I've never claimed that "moral convictions the sole property of religious beliefs", as you well know. To me, moral convictions derive from our golden rule, common to ALL men, pagan or religious.
The protection OR disenfranchisement of fetal individuals is a moral question that doesn't require any particular religious convictions to be the directives for laws or codification. But you keep trying to make this assertion to me and to Dr. Beverly. And why do you keep quoting Jackson? It won't stop opposition to your mischaracterizations and it won't magically gain you any allies in your efforts to raise strawman arguments.
Other than a bunch of emotional people saying that embryonic stem-cell research "might" or "may" or "possibly" cure alzheimers, is there any medical support for this hope at all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.