Posted on 10/24/2004 3:30:47 PM PDT by Ed Current
You are inconsistent in allowing a mother to murder her baby while prohibiting farmers from owning slaves. Both are cases of one person's whims superceding another person's life. Both have as a central pinion the notion of lesser "personhood" for the subjugated group.
Roe v. Wade is bad law. The tide is shifing. We can never undo 44 million abortions. We can, however, strive for the American ideal of liberty and justice for all, and seek to rebuild from this horrific holocaust. We can strive for cultural change than reduces the demand for abortion by living (in our personal lives) the Golden Rule.
Actually, TP is very intelligent, which makes the dissembling and mischaracterizations he tosses out even more egregious.
Being Americans we're remarably individualistic and selective in our morality.
You're out of your element, TP: --- As I've repeatedly told you, once fertilization has happened, there is no 'egg' because a new life has begun that is 46 chromosomes different from either the sperm or the ovum [egg].
And as I've repeatedly told you, no one disputes that cellular life begins at fertilization. But your claim that a fertilized egg is a person is specious.
The newly pregnant woman is a person. Her fertilized egg is nothing but a potential person, and pregnancy is a condition which she can reject. You, - and society, -- have no say in that matter, at that point.
I have no citation, but have a personal belief that a man may influence a woman, but it is her decision, she is responsible. Dealing with an adverse male is another story.
"Her fertilized egg is nothing but a potential person ..." Amazing! Would you be so kind as to tell us ill-informed rabble just when the individual new life becomes a human being? As I noted, you're very far from your element, and telling lies regarding the newly conceived isn't covered by silly repostings such as you try.
You are going to have to put it in comic book form for tpaine.
Even then, prospects are minimal.
Ed from the the peanut gallery takes a blank shot.
Why not try to refute my posted factual positions ed?
In your own words if you please.. That is, -- if you have a pair.
Laws can be wrong. Dred Scott was bad law. A woman who became a mother has already made her choice (in the case of the 97% of non-rape abortions), just as her mother did, and her mother before that.
Try to tell a woman, just after conception, that she has no natural right to end her pregnancy.
You are inconsistent in allowing a mother to murder her baby
I have no objection to you, or the State, giving a trial to all women accused of murder. You want to outlaw such trials, and proclaim women to be murderers by legislative decree.
while prohibiting farmers from owning slaves. Both are cases of one person's whims superceding another person's life. Both have as a central pinion the notion of lesser "personhood" for the subjugated group. Roe v. Wade is bad law.
Roe ended bad law. Murder declared by legislative decree is unconstitutional.
The tide is shifing. We can never undo 44 million abortions. We can, however, strive for the American ideal of liberty and justice for all, and seek to rebuild from this horrific holocaust. We can strive for cultural change than reduces the demand for abortion by living (in our personal lives) the Golden Rule.
Lex, -- a ~BIG~ part of learning to live by 'do onto others', is in 'mind your own business'.
Would you be so kind as to tell us ill-informed rabble just when the individual new life becomes a human being?
The USSC opined that the State could start defending the rights of the new life near the end of the first trimester, and by the end of the second that it could indict abortion as murder. -- I can live with that opinion.
As I noted, you're very far from your element, and telling lies regarding the newly conceived isn't covered by silly repostings such as you try.
You always end up frustrated, and trying to call me a liar. Sad comment on your own credibility, MHG. -- Get a new tactic.
You dissemble, and you know what you post is not truthful, so there it is, TP. Still trying to spew that 'fertilized egg' lie I see. You are so transparent.
For consistency, then, we need to repeal all murder laws. Then, following the reasoning above, it would be impossible to reinstate them, since it would be "unconstitutional." It is interesting that "Roe" herself has dedicated the balance of her life to reversing the decision whose plaintiff bears her pseudonym. Why is that?
Now, you have yet to show how the baby suddenly "becomes" human at 3 months, 6 months, birth, or any other arbitrary point in its development, appealing instead to bad precedent set in the courts, and playing semantical games via terms like "fertilized egg".
We would like to hear you explain why it should be legal - not why it is - for a woman to choose to kill a baby - a baby she (in 97% of cases) implicitly chose to conceive by choosing to fool around - while said baby is yet in her womb, but NOT after the baby is out of her womb. "Poof" again? Is birth the magical "poof" moment heralding a miraculous fundamental ontological and physical change in the child the moment the doctor severs the cord?
You have yet to refute the blatantly obvious parallel between slavery (also affirmed in the courts) and abortion.
Lex, -- a ~BIG~ part of learning to live by 'do onto others', is in 'mind your own business'.
Just like the "good Germans", minding their own business...
There are millions of us who will not rest until America's brand of Nazism is defeated. Not a day goes by when I do not think of the little babies that will be ripped out of their mothers' wombs, limb by limb, with no anesthesia. Babies in my city, in my state, in my country. "Unwanted" babies, like my own wife and my own father. Murder is indeed a strong word, but I know of no other with which to label this evil and can think of no good reason to sugarcoat it.
And no, we will not "mind my own business", when a single pregnant mother needs clothes, a bassinet, toys, love, support, and affirmation.
Ask the lab tech who fertilizes dozens of them, then discards most. Is he a murderer?
Nice try. We were asking YOU. But we already know your thought on the matter.
That's why I answered that way. You think you 'know', but the fact is, the lab tech is not a murderer because an egg is not a person.
It's a leftist tactic to avoid the question by asking a question.
Bull. It's a silly tactic to infer I'm a leftist.
You should know this as long as you've been here.
Whatever. Your opinions are becoming boring.
How about sexually abusing an extremely retarded person? They aren't aware....don't "seem" to react much to it. Must be O.K. then, right? As with the lab tech, I guess we'd have to ask the person who abused the retarded person huh? Is THAT your logic?! So what about it? Where's the line? When does a fertilized egg suddenly become human? At what point? Please tell me. I've been really wanting an answer to this for a long time.
See my post #51.
Or for that matter, corn! The question is still....as you have yet to answer, "What else could the fertilized egg possibly be other than a PERSON? I think the problem is that in order to admit that common fertilized eggs are PEOPLE, then you have to bear the burden of knowing that murder is occuring, and most people would rather dehumanize a person before murdering him/her. It's a lot easier to murder somebody that you choose to believe isn't human.
Again, whatever. Feel free to post to me when you get some new points.
"... the fact is, the lab tech is not a murderer because an egg is not a person." That technician to whom you nebulously refer also knows that once fertilization has been successful, there is no longer an ovum. BTW, you keep using the term 'egg', are you obsessed with chickens, TP? Odd that you don't seem capable of taking a lesson from that technician to whom you refer.
Specious argument. HH, notice he leaves out the "fertilized", above. The latter clause of his statement as constructed is correct: an "egg" is not a person. The 46-chromosome product of the union of a sperm with the ovum IS a person.
tpaine, assuming you meant that a "fertilized" egg is not a person: What, exactly, is the "magic poof moment" at which the "fertilized egg" becomes a human being?
For consistency, then, we need to repeal all murder laws.
Whatever. You're becoming irrational.
Then, following the reasoning above, it would be impossible to reinstate them, since it would be "unconstitutional." It is interesting that "Roe" herself has dedicated the balance of her life to reversing the decision whose plaintiff bears her pseudonym. Why is that? Now, you have yet to show how the baby suddenly "becomes" human at 3 months, 6 months, birth, or any other arbitrary point in its development,
I put foward my reasoning at #51. You can't refute it? Tough.
appealing instead to bad precedent set in the courts, and playing semantical games via terms like "fertilized egg". We would like to hear you explain why it should be legal - not why it is - for a woman to choose to kill a baby - a baby she (in 97% of cases) implicitly chose to conceive by choosing to fool around - while said baby is yet in her womb, but NOT after the baby is out of her womb. "Poof" again? Is birth the magical "poof" moment heralding a miraculous fundamental ontological and physical change in the child the moment the doctor severs the cord? You have yet to refute the blatantly obvious parallel between slavery (also affirmed in the courts) and abortion.
Whatever.
Lex, -- a ~BIG~ part of learning to live by 'do onto others', is in 'mind your own business'.
Just like the "good Germans", minding their own business...
Good grief, you're trying to establsh that I'm nazi-like by defending a womens right to end early term pregnancy?
There are millions of us who will not rest until America's brand of Nazism is defeated.
And to 'defeat' early term abortion you want an authoritarian State to decree that ending a pregnancy is murder.
Not a day goes by when I do not think of the little babies that will be ripped out of their mothers' wombs, limb by limb, with no anesthesia. Babies in my city, in my state, in my country. "Unwanted" babies, like my own wife and my own father. Murder is indeed a strong word, but I know of no other with which to label this evil and can think of no good reason to sugarcoat it. And no, we will not "mind my own business", when a single pregnant mother needs clothes, a bassinet, toys, love, support, and affirmation.
Now you're talking sense.. You have my full support in helping to end abortion in this way.
tpaine, assuming you meant that a "fertilized" egg is not a person: What, exactly, is the "magic poof moment" at which the "fertilized egg" becomes a human being?
Sorry Virgina, there is no Santa, and no "magic" point.
See #51 from my take on the Constitutionality of personhood.
Whatever. You're becoming irrational.
What is irrational is the notion that a woman should "have a right to terminate her pregnancy", when that word "terminate" implies the halting of development of a little life whose very existence the mother had every opportunity to prevent. In #51, you yourself admitted "no one disputes that cellular life begins at fertilization". At this point you are left with a tenuous bifurcation between life and personhood. To the logical mind this is problematic, and is why I've been so tough on you to show us the "magical moment" at which the baby becomes a "person".
You then go on to make the baseless statement that "her fertilized egg is nothing but a potential person, and pregnancy is a condition which she can reject. You, - and society, -- have no say in that matter, at that point." At this point you are bound to show why that is true in this case - a case in which a woman is choosing to end a hardship she (in 97% of cases) brought upon herself at the expense of someone else - and not true in other, analogous cases like slavery. Indeed, you need to show why any murder is not an infringment of life.
I posit that your whole basis for this rests on the non-"person" status of the baby.
Just like the "good Germans", minding their own business...
Good grief, you're trying to establsh that I'm nazi-like by defending a womens right to end early term pregnancy?
If x becomes the accepted norm, and y is very far from x then y will appear irrational to x's adherents. The reverse is true: y was once the norm, and x appeared at that time as the extreme position. If there is no objective right and wrong, then morals can change. If that, in turn, is the case, we have no fundamental basis for any law, since law itself implies absolute truth.
There are millions of us who will not rest until America's brand of Nazism is defeated.
And to 'defeat' early term abortion you want an authoritarian State to decree that ending a pregnancy is murder.
No more and no less than the "authoritarian" laws that for the nonce prohibit all other forms of murder.
Realize I'm not going after you personally but after a whole system of thinking that has proven detrimental to our overall health as a society. This system redefines logic and invents "absolutes" of its own (like "she has a sovereign right to do as she pleases with her own body") to fill the void of those it has vacated (ergo "Thou shalt not kill"). To one (and I presume not to know if this includes you) who has grown to affirm relativism as truth - which is itself a contradiction - the arguments presented will appear "extreme" and shocking.
I think I've presented a pretty logical case for why the unborn should be protected by the law. Making this a reality, however, will mean fundamental cultural changes. For example, extramarital affairs must come to be viewed again as a disgrace and aberration, not as the norm. To your credit, you've observed that simple top-down legislation of morality cannot change the heart, which is by its nature evil - just look around if you need proof.
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.