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?
-tpaine-
-- [whereupon you replied] --
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.
-tpaine-
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."
-hocndoc-
It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.
193 tpaine
- [Now you reply] -
First, the result of your line by line posts which contain quotes from several posters and no notation as to who is speaking may be part of the source of your misunderstanding.
I have no 'misunderstandings'. -- Post 193 above, was directed to you. You had replied to Jackson & I on our agreement, which I included as a reference.
-- Your remarks are italicized, mine are plain. - This is the conventional format at FR.
Your posts also could appear to make some of us say what we have not said - affecting your credibility.
You seem to be unable to respond to some of my points. Your claim that my posting 'style' makes you somehow appear to make you say 'what you have not said', is getting really weird, imo.
If you must copy so much, please be more clear as to who you are quoting. At the very least, only quote one of us at a time.
Jackson's quote above was clearly labeled in #193. You are the one dissembling here, not me.
However, your understanding might be improved if you look at entire paragraphs rather than sentences and phrases.
When my opponents mix different arguments in one paragraph, answers must be made at appropriate points.
Again, you are mixing 2 separate circumstances and sets of laws *as I said and you quoted*:
" 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 may think you've made a clear point in that quote. I don't. -- so I answered: -- ]
The legal point when 'personhood' begins becomes a constitutional matter when an abortion is charged as being murder.
You don't understand that answer? Then you have to either try harder, -- or, --- redefine your question.
We disagree on the relevancy of the status of human embryos in utero and in vitro under the law, as well as whether the recognition of either is "a Judeo-Christian moral" or "goes against our constitutional principles."
There is not a direct correlation between the laws that allow a woman to empty her uterus and those which affect the embryo created by design in the laboratory. There is a direct correlation between the species of each and that is a matter of scientific fact. Thinking humans may recognize that there should be a correlation between the legal status and protection of each, i.e., whether each is a person or not. However, the status of women in Iran does not affect my personhood and the status of unwanted humans in utero does not affect the status of wanted humans in vitro.
As to the "Judeo-Christian" and "Constitutionality" arguments, they are refuted by the the NJSC in the Quinlan opinion. The basis of the Constitution is an inalienable right to life.