Posted on 03/14/2002 5:50:19 AM PST by wwcc
I'm sorry but I still cannot see it your way. The reason is that I feel the Supreme Court cannot make any arbitrary interpretation. It is limited by factors I enumerated earlier. It can make interpretations not acceptable to you or I but the more people it alienates the more dangerous its position. The Justices are aware of the political realities.
So far, the Justices have been extremely astute. With one exception our system has worked without the revolts, revolutions, and other instabilities which characterize so much of the rest of the world. That exception was slavery and the Court cannot be faulted for it: that was a problem the founders inherited. I doubt it could have been resolved in any other way.
Sorry, but you are one screwed up dude! You are talking as if there are some evil fetuses floating around in the universe ready to pounce on some innocent woman in order to usurp her uterus for it's own development, for crying out loud.
There's only ONE way for a woman to have a "parasite" sucking her resources dry, and 99.99% of the time it is by her OWN ACTIONS AND CHOICE that this comes about. The INNOCENT unborn human being had absolutely no choice in the matter.
Based on a disagreement on a contentious issue you conclude I have a "sick mind".
When I point out that asserting (using graphic images and big script) is not arguing, you respond with more of the same - like a child having a tantrum.
When I say that's highly intolerant behavior you respond by saying "you pity me".
What kind of responses are those? Especially when posting to a site that specializes in reasoned, informed discussion.
Now matter how you and others that believe as you do and try to justify the murder of an unborn child, I still believe murder is murder.
"Based on a disagreement on a contentious issue you conclude I have a "sick mind".
Do you believe its perfectly ok to abort a child because its inconvenient? From what I see with ALL pro abortionists is that they believe the innocent child ought to pay for the indiscretions or crimes of its parents with its life. To me that's sick. Too brutally rip a growing developing human being from the womb of its mother is IMHO horrific murder and anyone who attempts to justify such an evil act is IN THE HEAD.
"When I point out that asserting (using graphic images and big script) is not arguing,..."
Your correct, I'm nor arguing with you, I'm pointing out facts. And the fact is anyone who try's to justify an act of premeditated murder is IN THE HEAD.
"you respond with more of the same - like a child having a tantrum."
Thank you. Coming from a liberal such as yourself I consider all the attempts at insulting me as compliments. If you say I'm acting like a child (because I don't believe in murder) Are you saying I should be put to death?
You liberals are a strange group of people. You don't believe in the death penalty for convicted murderer's, yet you believe in the murder of an innocent child.
You believe that if all guns were taken away from the people that all crime with stop, yet the facts state otherwise.
You believe that being a faggot sodomite is perfectly normal and yet ignore the fact that the act of sex is for procreation and that two men or two women having sex can never produce a child. So homosexuality isn't normal. Yet you people constitently believe it is.
Liberals are a walking, breathing oxymoron.
"... intolerant behavior ..."
Pure liberalspeak. You people are the most intolerant of all. You believe that if everyone on the planet doesn't agree with everything you say than you call them intolerant. You should practice what you preach.
"...reasoned, informed discussion."
Because I don't believe as you do, I'm not being reasonable or informative. Interesting.
Murder is murder you say. But law books - and religious texts - are filled with subtleties you choose to ignore. There are times when killing is justified, when it is accidental, when it is necessary, etc.
If you had been paying attention to the arguments - instead of self-righteously ranting - you would have seen that there's a real dispute on at least two issues;
l) When a fertilized egg becomes a person
2) How to deal with unwanted pregnancies - because realistically abstinance is not a practical contraceptive. It hasn't ever worked and there's no reason to believe it ever will. (Now that statement has only one possible sensible meaning - but for you I'll explain: most people will not abstain)
Most of my argument dealt not with abortion but with Constitutional issues. I only made my point of view known when JWalsh asked me about it. I pointed out that - realistically - liberals and conservatives will never give up their beliefs so that for the health of our society it was necessary to find a workeable compromise. I proposed one.
You seem to have entirely missed everything. So, now that I've made it clear, what's your solution? Let me guess - more ranting. More nonsense about evil liberals. Refusal to even consider compromise. If I'm correct then we're back to medievil solutions - or Stalinist solutions.
I don't think it's factually accurate. I think teaching abstinance is about as effective as teaching the dangers of smoking, drinking, and drugs is to stopping those abuses. It works well only when dealing with those least at risk (Those pre-disposed by background and temperament to accepting it).
None the less it should be part of every sex education program. Almost anything is better than abortion.
My preference is for ever better contraceptives, morning after pills, and the compromise I suggested earlier: early pregnancy testing, and legal, penalty-free abortions only in the third, fourth, or early fifth month, with severe penalties thereafter (with caveats for difficult and unusual situations).
Where liberals and conservatives - especially religious conservatives - differ is in the purpose of sex. The former regard it as an unalloyed pleasure (with some risk as is the case with most pleasures). The latter as a sacred gift intimately associated with procreation. Neither side will succeed in converting the other to its point of view.
As for what constitutes a human being. There too we differ. I do not find a fertilized egg to be one. My view is the transition is gradual, and does not complete itself until maturity. When one decides to call a mass of cells a living human being is somewhat arbitrary - but if one is going to terminate a pregnancy sooner is much, much better than later.
This is a gross exageration - or sophistry. Only the most degraded women regard abortion with equanimity.
The situation with respect to marijuana is similar. Most people who grew up in the '60s and later know from personal experience that only a small minority who use the drug risk serious consequences. Not much different than those who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Attempts by moralists to demonize it then become ridiculous.
The problem is the law - which is public morality. There's always been a tension between private morality - conscience - and public morality - law. And, among the religious between the church and the individual. Perhaps, more generally, there's always been tension between the individual and the social body.
It's never been completely resolved - probably cannot be. Tolerance is our answer but there are limits. We don't tolerate human or animal sacrifice. We don't let mothers watch their children die for lack of medical attention because such attention is in conflict with their beliefs. Abortion is one of those issues which tests the limits.
Do you know the difference between "killing" and murder? I do. It seems your equating killing and murder to mean the same thing, its not.
Kill. "To deprive of life ; to destroy the life of an animal or person. The word homicide expresses the killing of a human being."
Murder. "The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought , either express or implied."
Aforethought. "Thought out beforehand; premeditated."
The model Penal Code definition is as follows: "Criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."
Since everything has to be explained twice to a liberal, I'll give you an example.
Lets say someone is breaking into my home in the middle of the night. I wake up a hear the sound of breaking glass or some other noise in my home. I get up, grab my 44 mag from my bedside table and go to investigate (I know liberals believe I shouldn't have the right to "keep and bear arms" but, that's your problem. I have the God given right and I'm gonna exercise it). Anyway. I go out into the living room and there's some thief in there rummaging through my stuff. I yell stop, freeze, whatever as I turn on the light (to make sure its not my wife, kids whatever). The thief turns and comes at me with a knife or turns to shoot me and I shoot him and he dies. Question. Did I kill him?, yes I did. Did I murder him?, no I didn't.
I yell stop / freeze and he turns and jumps out the window or runs out the front door and down the street. I give chase and as I'm running after him I shoot him in the back and he dies.
Question. Did I kill him?, yes I did. Did I murder him?, YES.
Now Mr. liberal pay close attention to this. The difference between the two is simple. In the first scenario my life was in immediate danger while the second scenario it wasn't. That's the difference between "killing" and "murder"
Its the same thing with abortion.
Abortion is premeditated homicide or murder. The abortionist knows beforehand that he / she is killing that baby willingly and purposely.
"l) When a fertilized egg becomes a person." Don't you mean Human being?
From the moment of conception. Why do I say that?, simple. If left alone to develop, what will that fertilized egg become?
Now if it were a crap shoot and one out of every 1,000 fertilized egg were to become a human being and all the others were, monkeys, bears, chickens, etc., than one would be justified in asking that question "When a fertilized egg becomes a person." but, since every single one of those fertilized eggs at the end of 9 months (sometimes sooner, sometimes later) are human beings and not chickens or monkeys or?
Conception "The of pregnancy. As to human beings, the fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of survival and maturation under normal conditions."
"2) How to deal with unwanted pregnancies..."
Its called birth control. Its called abstinence. Its called (now here's one you liberals will NEVER adhere to) personal responsibility. Unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. How do you avoid crashes while cruising down the road, your careful. By your reasoning (or lack there off) maybe we can avoid more accidents if the one who is at fault at the scene was executed on the spot, thus removing the careless "driver" from the roads. But that can't be equated with abortion can it because the child is INNOCENT.
" Most of my argument dealt not with abortion but with Constitutional issues."
It's gone way beyond that.
" for the health of our society..."
You believe these united States are a democracy, don't you? Where people don't have individual rights, but collective rights.
"...workeable compromise..."
When it come the the choice of an INNOCENT child losing its life because it has become inconvenient, you damned right I won't "compromise" .
Hey granny's become inconvenient. All she does is sit around the house and consume food, make a mess. She's become a useless eater. Maybe we should execute help her move on with some poison in her tea. Hey grandpa is still in that old age home. Maybe we should gp put him out of our misery, whatta ya think?
"I proposed one."
Yeah, cold blooded murder.
"Stalinist solutions." Stalin murdered millions, and your proposing the same.
You seem to have entirely missed everything."
You to want to justify abortion correct?
Modern contraceptives make, or will soon make, the debate about abortion moot. It is, or will soon be, a red herring.
The debate is really about sexual license. Remove unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases from the arena and resistance to license collapses - and with it the whole religious structure built on that resistance.
Where does that leave us? Where are we headed? Who knows? Sodom and Gommorah? Babel? Perhaps. But we only know those places through the eyes of the Israelites. I might have thought them to be delightfully civilized and the Israelites primitive, destructive savages.
But look what happened to them? Well, look what happened to the Israelites.
There is no such thing a private morality because your lack of judgment is affecting us all. You claim to have a right to raise your children according to your own beliefs but obviously have no standard on which to base your beliefs. Without the standard of right and wrong you have no gauge to which you may calibrate your ruler. Your judgment becomes faulty and you walk in darkness.
You have no right to promulgate faulty or perverted standards of morality. Mans law is irrelevant and your rights are given by GOD. Without God and the standards of right and wrong from which to gauge truth you have nothing except conflict. Conflict you rightly deserve.
When God told the invading Israelites to slaughter all the Canaanites - including babies and the unborn - was that killing or murder?
When God took all the Egyptian first-born - including babies - was that killing or murder?
When, in the course of a just war, each side claims that its actions are just and millions are killed - including babies and the unborn - is that killing or murder?
Frankly, you tire me. You can't seem to respond in a civilized way. Everything you say drips with insult and self-righteousness, with assumptions of superior knowledge and lame political generalizations.
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.