Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
That does not explain how you plan to preserve the woman's liberty.
I'm sorry, I thought I was clear in my earlier posts. The right to life trumps the liberty interest.
You're quite clear now. You believe that the liberty of being secure in your person is an "interest", not a right. You would force someone to be a kidney donor, to save another person's life.
If you seriously think that is an apt analogy, you are too obtuse to merit serious consideration.
Fallacy of the false disjunct. it's c) your sentence was so incoherent that i truly could not understand what you were communicating.
Sorry, it is extremely relevant, unless you have written and passed into law statutes to the contrary.
No, it's not. You've not demonstrated how it is relevent at all to the point. please go back and read my post again, and deal with the point rather than deal a red herring.
you want the guy in black robes to make it up on the fly from the bench and turn abortion into a federal matter.
How ironic that you, who has argued that our rights are derived from men, would argue that someone like me believes in judicial supremacy, when it is the exact opposite.
You keep erecting red herrings, but you have yet to deal with the 5th and 14th amendment's protections of persons. A state does not have the right to deny any person life. True or false? Ever hear of the 13th amendment?
BTW, there were whites who were slaves, too.
And? does that mean that our rights are derived from the state or from God? Please stick tot he points at hand.
Like a dog returning to his vomit, a liberal will return to the same moronic argument, and then pat himself on the back because he thinks he's clever.
Therre goes that psychological projection, again. So, are our rights derived from God? You never answered thisa, or the implications this has on the debate at hand.
You also never answered the point that, by YOUR reasoning, non-citizens have no right to life. Please answer the questions, and refrain from the ad hominem attacks, red herrings, false disjuncts, straw men arguments, and other fallacies.
Sorry, but the common law requires that one be born before being considered a person. It also treats abortion as a potential tort.
Sorry, but that has already been addressed. You incorrectly assume that there is one absolutely unified, non-contradictory body of common law. You also falsely assume that any said common law is superlative, and supercedes the constitution.
If you want this changed, you need to go to your legislature and get laws passed that say what you want to say. I know that it's hard work, and that you'd much prefer to have five judges simply outlaw abortion by judicial fiat--just like every other liberal.
No, i don't. innocent persons (which is what you already agreed unborn children are) are protected by the 5th and 14th amendments.
Are you aware that the "common law" (depending on how it is defined) dictated that blacks were "inferior beings" and "property"?
You still have not answered this. referring to this fact as "playing the race card" does not answer the point that MUST be addressed if your position is to avoid hopeless contradiction.
Analogy not applicable because your case does not exist, will not exist, and you are thus guilty of wasting my valuable time by arguing like a liberal moron.
In other words "well, tame, i don't have a good answer to your lethal point, so i'll just call you a moron."
Straw man argument, and VERY dishonest. The point is made that your position is internally inconsistent, hopelessly contradictory, and flawed. You cannot explain why your argument is applicable to one group but not to another without undermining your own logic (actually, lack thereof).
In other words, you don't have any sources. You're bluffing.
On this matter, there is. It actually goes back to the Old Testament. Abortion is a tort. Period.
Abortion was outlawed by statute in many states because of concerns regarding women's health (surgical abortion was a particularly hazardous affair before modern antiseptic procedures came about).
You also falsely assume that any said common law is superlative, and supercedes the constitution.
No, I didn't argue that. I'm saying that where the Constitution is silent (such as when personhood begins, and whether abortion is murder), common law takes over, and the Constitution does not allow .
You keep erecting red herrings, but you have yet to deal with the 5th and 14th amendment's protections of persons. A state does not have the right to deny any person life.
And the state isn't. Unborn babies are not persons, no matter what you wish, unless statutory law of sufficiently borad construction (such as a Constitutional Amendment) actually says so.
True or false? Ever hear of the 13th amendment?
It's obvious you haven't.
No, i don't. innocent persons (which is what you already agreed unborn children are) are protected by the 5th and 14th amendments.
What I consider to be a person and what actually is a person in the eyes of the common law are two different things. The 5th and 14th Amendments do not override common law to the degree you claim they do.
Are you aware that the "common law" (depending on how it is defined) dictated that blacks were "inferior beings" and "property"?
You still have not answered this. referring to this fact as "playing the race card" does not answer the point that MUST be addressed if your position is to avoid hopeless contradiction.
Note that the 13th and 14th Amendments were required in order to overcome that defect.
But you keep harping on that race card.
Thank you for summing yourself up in one sentence. Now go away.
Ha! I'm obtuse, but you're the one who thinks liberty is an "interest".
And I suppose 'Al' will finally conclude the investigation on Sandy Berger and charge him with theft of classified material? After all, he will rule or manage according to the Constitution and existing law, right????
It is not Al's responsibility to investigate Sandy Berger or anyone else - not his job. It would be the Justice Department's responsibility, under the Attorney General.
That's a confusing statement? Al is not responsible for investigating Berger but it is the Justice Department's responsibility, a department that he will oversee? Maybe I am beginning to understand what is screwed up in this country!!!!!!
That's a confusing statement? Al is not responsible for investigating Berger but it is the Justice Department's responsibility, a department that he will oversee? Maybe I am beginning to understand what is screwed up in this country!!!!!!
My mistake, I thought you were critical of Al because he hadn't already investigated Berger's action. My point was, he can't do it now because he is not Attn Gen. Sorry about that!
Why did you use a term of art like that?
Because the right to be secure in your person is a liberty that kind of bothers you.
All the lamisil in the world will not resolve your contradictions. You must realize that there are two rights here in question - life and liberty.
You're the jockitch of this forum. You keep coming back... yada bla bla... Let's skip the insults shall we? You're not at an advantage there.
"The right to life trumps the liberty interest."
The right to life never trumps the right to liberty. They are equally important. Anyone who can sympathize with Patrick Henry can see that.
The rights of the independent trump the rights of the dependent, when the two come into conflict. Any conservative knows that, because conservatives know that the dependent are not as innocent as the independent.
A mentally ill patient can be deprived of liberty, if he cannot survive without being dependent on the state. His dependence creates an inferiority in his rights.
The mother of a zygote-person is independent and has an inviolable constitutional right to be secure in her person. The zygote-person has an inviolable right to life - if it can sustain it independently of the mother's person. The mother has a right to remove it, but not to kill it. If removing it kills it, that's not the mother's fault.
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.