Posted on 08/05/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
AMENDMENT 14
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
NO, they are all factors in why the fetus is not an individual until it physically SEPARATES from the mother.
I like steak. When I was very young I preferred milk. Before that I preferred to lech my nutrients from the wall of my mothers womb. That's the way real young folk eat.
The Baby does not come in physical contact with the mother until the water breaks and it passes through the birth canal. One could have more contact with the inside of a woman during sex. (and that doesn't give her the right to kill you)
I don't know what your history is, but people are often mislead by what's cool at the time. It's no disgrace. You've got to move on…
The pro-abortion argument is nonsense. Your smart enough to understand that.
I was demonstrating that women don’t really believe in the lie “my body, my choice” unless they are killing a baby rather than themselves.
I am "Pro-Fetus – always/Anti-Mom – if she is going to murder a baby/Anti-Doctor – if the Dr. is going to execute a baby for money".
Talk about hypocrites, pot – kettle.
1. "Is it Human ,that is, did it come from human beings?"
2. "Is it a gentically unique individual?"
3. "Is it alive and growing."
If you answer yes to all three, then its a person, undoubtedly. The question you have to ask yourself is entirely different. You have to ask yourself if it is moral to destroy another human being, a person, for convenience sake. Think about it.
It is absolutely moral to use defensive force against an aggressor who acts to violate rights.
We believe God answers prayer. We believe more children are saved by prayer than government thugs.
Your prayers have saved exactly ZERO children, and sacrificed many millions. Prayers are the lazy and impotent man's excuse to hide from his responsibility to act in this world.
We choose God.
You abdicate your humanity.
You choose the government.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I am no anarchist. I assert that there is a moral role for government in a civil society, and that role is to stand as protector and defender of individual rights. Frankly, if someone were to initiate violence against you at a time when you were vulnerable, you would not hestitate to call for government assistance. The child being ripped limb from limb, or chemically burned to death in the womb is just about as vulnerable as a living human being can be. So, I would have absolutely no qualms about asking government to use defensive force on its behalf.
Read your Bible and see which we are supposed to choose.
Quit trying to hide behind a book of irrational myths, false promises and sappy bromides. The moral choice is clearly presented through experiencing reality and applying reason.
Be careful of your accusations, and always treat strangers carefully.
Threaten someone else, Hank. I'm not in the mood for silly games.
God bless!
Rather than worry your gods about blessing me, maybe you ought to be petitioning them to end the slaughter of innocent children. Of course, if they really existed as you claim to believe, justice would have been served long ago.
Zon: You created your own definition of appendage. That's irrational. 248
LOL. I'm irrational? You're argument sucks, it doesn't pass the laugh test, the genetic test,the blood test or the placental barrier test.
It doesn't have to pass your tests. The appendage/property argument passes the appendage test and that is the argument I put forth. The only attempt you made at trying to refute the argument was to create your own definition of appendage.
Why don't you simply say that it is a person but that you think these persons should be subject to abortion at the will of the Mother. That's an honest, albeit wrong in my view, position to take. The appendage argument is ridiculous.
Why don't you simply try to rationally refute the appendage/property argument instead of obfuscating by creating your own word definitions and calling ridiculous what you're unable to refute.
Hardly. It is a living entity entirely unique from the body of the woman.
Unlike a person that has been born and can exist after the woman that gave birth to it is dead. Many different appendages can be removed from a person and the person can still live. Teeth are the most common appendages that are removed wherein the person lives on. When a person dies all their appendages die with them.
Then, the mother could be considered simply an appendage of the child, such that at the point where it could survive outside the womb, the appendage surrounding it could be slaughtered? Using your logic, that would be equally true.
Many appendages a woman has can be removed and be kept alive separate from the woman. For example, that's is a critical part of organ transplant procedure and requires the organ donor's consent. Consent to have an appendage removed. Consent is mandatory when a living person donates one of their kidneys to be removed. The person donating the kidney does that with the expectation that they can live with one kidney. Likewise, consent is required to remove a person's tonsils, appendix, wart or fetus.
A child is not a wart to be excised. And, as JWalsh pointed out in the beginning of this thread, the new imaging technology is going to make it impossible for that fallacy to be maintained. We will one day look back on the supporters of abortion with the same sense of disgust that we look upon the communist butchers of the 20th century.
The most basic individual/human right is the right to one's own life.
Indeed, it is. That is why abortion is nothing but cold blooded premeditated murder.
That life includes all the person's appendages. Due to cause and effect a woman cannot be an appendage of her fetus.
Using your logic she could be considered exactly that. Fortunately, you logic is flawed. The child is not an "appendage" of the woman. It is a unique living individual human being with the same exact right to life that every other human, including its mother, has.
Thus the reason for the common-sense logic of saying "the woman's fetus", and not saying "the fetus's woman". ...Or "the woman's embryo" and not "the embryo's woman".
Word games are interesting, but less than useful. When you start with a flawed premise and then build upon it, the whole structure falls. The child in-utero is not an organ of the woman, or even an appendage. It is a unique living creature.
Could you translate that into English for me?
we already do pay for the support of all the children saved from abortion whose parents request it, oops, DEMAND it.
How convenient.
Being "a person" is not some magical state that bestows all sorts of mythical powers on a person. It is strictly a social convention (and that it is nothing more has been in regular evidence since the beginning of time). To something being a person, I'd say "So what?". Rights are not automatically ascribed to personhood, nor are "rights" anything other than arbitrary. You argument seems to be premised on a towering house of cards, the conclusion to which is semantically null. It certainly doesn't allow one to render meaningful discrimination of actions taken against the "person" entity (whether the fetus or you and I) to be "good" or "bad" in an objective context.
Give me something useful and consistent in a moral absolutist framework (which is the view I basically subscribe to).
Zon, nothing personal, but I destroyed your argument with science. You feel that a baby is an appendage. Thats fine, you can live out your entire life believing that as far as I'm concerned.
To recap, the baby has its own unique genetic code, its own blood and it builds its own placental barrier to separate it from Mom. The baby decides when the water breaks and when it will be born, not Mom.
If thats not enough to convince you that a baby and an appendix are indeed two different things, then I can't help you. I'm sorry you feel that way, but comforted to know that not many folk would agree with you.
I would say you and I are so far apart that to continue a discussion would be fruitless.
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.