I"m still waiting on yoda to prove self
governance and self direction; which are
higher thought processes, in a fetus..
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-14-08 17:59pm
I don’t see any brilliance or excellent
quality in Wendy McElroy’s article. In
fact, I find her argument very illogical.
This is my first post, so I'm just going
to go through some of her assertions to
show you her flawed logic.
Quote:
The principle
underlying libertarianism--the reason it
is wrong to initiate force against
anyone--is that it violates that person's
self- ownership. This moral jurisdiction
is what I mean by the term individual
rights.
The concept of rights is key to the
abortion issue. Antiabortionists claim
that abortion violates the rights of the
fetus. I contend that antiabortion
legislation violates the rights of the
pregnant woman. I also contend that the
fetus is not a human being. It possesses
no rights. Up until the point of birth, it
is not a
self-owner.
Wendy McElroy contends that “it is wrong
to initiate force against anyone”. In
her opening paragraph she argued that if
the fetus is a human being with individual
rights, then she was among millions of
women who have committed first degree
homicide. However, in the fifth paragraph
she summarily declared that “the fetus
is not a human being” without providing
a shred of direct evidence to support her
contention. Therefore, she is certainly
wrong to contend that the fetus
“possesses no rights” without
providing any scientific proof that the
fetus is not a human being.
Historically, we know what happened to
people in Europe and America when people
in power simply declare the powerless as
sub-human or mere property. If her opinion
is simply an intellectual exercise in
philosophical debate for the enquiring
minds, we can simply dismiss her
subsequent circumstantial argument as
harmless conjectures. But, since her
opinion is about abortion, whatever
assertion she makes will affect the life
or death of prenatal human lives.
In our judicial system where capital cases
are involved, there is a presumption of
innocence until proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the burden of
proof regarding the humanity of prenatal
life rests on those who support the taking
of that life in abortion.
Quote:
To say this is
not to deny that the fetus is in some
sense alive, or that the zygote is a
potential human being. A potential is not
an actual, however; it is a hypothetical
possibility.
McElroy is confused between the entity and
its attributes. The fetus, which is alive
and in existence, can be observed with 3-D
ultrasound. The fetus can also be
physically handled for surgical procedure.
Such as the case of Baby Grace who
underwent a fetal heart surgery inside her
mother’s womb in Boston on November 7,
2005. The surgery was real, her heart
which was surgically repaired was also
real. There is nothing potential about
it.
A potential is simply a future attribute
which is inherent in something that is
already in existence. For instance, a male
baby has the potential to grow facial and
body hair when he grows up as a man due to
his family genetics. Just because that
potential is not realized for another
decade and a half of his future life,
doesn’t mean that the baby is just a
potential. A potential is not the thing
itself and cannot exist without something
already in existence. Therefore, McElroy
is confusing the existence of a thing, in
this case the fetus, as contrasted with
its potential attributes.
Quote:
but on the
assumption that at the instant of
conception--at the moment there is a
fertilized egg-there is a human being with
individual
rights.
Unless McElroy has concrete scientific
evidence to prove that at conception a
fertilized egg is not a human being, but
some bacteria, some chicken egg, some
tissue, or some non-living material, then
wait for just nine month she will be able
to see and handle the screaming baby with
her own eyes and hands. If she is
impatience, then go to the hospital and
see premature babies taken out from the
womb to the incubator through C-section.
As for me, I am more realistic and don’t
expect a human being at conception to be
fully formed with politically correct
anatomy of adult physical body and a
rational thinking brain. No, the fact is
that at conception the human being simply
exists as a single cell. To expect
otherwise from the unborn human life is
absurd and clearly defy biological fact.
Quote:
The essential
question becomes: 'What does it mean to be
an individual?" For only by being an
individual can the fetus possess
individual
rights.
Why is “individuality” such an
essential question that allows advocates
of abortion rights to use it to decide who
lives and who dies?
Just because the fetus is connected to the
mother in the womb by the placenta does
not mean that the fetus is not an
individual being different from the
mother. Conjoined twins are connected to
each other and often share vital organs
for survival for all the duration of their
lives, not just mere nine month. Yet, we
still consider each twin as individual
human being with right to life.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-14-08 19:49pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
In our judicial system where
capital cases are involved, there is a
presumption of innocence until proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
the burden of proof regarding the humanity
of prenatal life rests on those who
support the taking of that life in
abortion.
I don't understand your logic here.
Abortion is not capital punishment,
fetuses are not on trial to even be
presumed innocent, and mothers are not the
prosecution. Could you further explain why
you draw parallel lines between the two?
dolphinocean
wrote:
Unless McElroy has concrete scientific
evidence to prove that at conception a
fertilized egg is not a human being, but
some bacteria, some chicken egg, some
tissue, or some non-living material, then
wait for just nine month she will be able
to see and handle the screaming baby with
her own eyes and hands. If she is
impatience, then go to the hospital and
see premature babies taken out from the
womb to the incubator through
C-section.
Perhaps the differentiation between "human
being" as legal terminology and "human" as
an adjective is important here.
As arguments surrounding the concept of
"burden of proof" tend to be unproductive,
I will not ask additional related
questions.
Welcome to the forum!
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 02-15-08 07:18am
At which stage, Dolphin, should we
commence criminal capital cases against
feti? Analogizing is nice but your entire
post is a insufficient premise and faulty
anology fallacy.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-15-08 13:42pm
Birch
wrote:
I don't understand your
logic here. Abortion is not capital
punishment, fetuses are not on trial to
even be presumed innocent, and mothers are
not the prosecution. Could you further
explain why you draw parallel lines
between the
two?
Abortion is a death sentence to the unborn
human life. When I say “unborn human
life” I mean unborn human being. The
fact that a suspected criminal is given a
trial but the unborn is not even given an
inquiry to prove his/her humanity in which
there is no crime except to be callously
dismissed as some blob of cells or
tissues, that is precisely the sad part,
Birch.
Birch
wrote:
Perhaps the differentiation
between "human being" as legal terminology
and "human" as an adjective is important
here.
As arguments surrounding the concept of
"burden of proof" tend to be unproductive,
I will not ask additional related
questions.
Welcome to the
forum
On your point regarding the
differentiation between “human being”
as legal terminology and “human” as an
adjective, such differentiation is
semantic. In the differentiation between
the prenatal human life vs a
differentiated cells of a post-natal human
tissue, such differentiation is
biological. But, those are entirely
another debate.
The point here is about Wendy McElroy’s
claim made in her article as quoted
below:
If the fetus is a human being with
individual rights, then I am among
millions of women who have committed first
degree, premeditated homicide, and I
should be subject to whatever penalties
are imposed upon that crime.
The word “human being” in her article
is clearly about “human being” as
legal terminology and not “human” as
an adjective such as human toenail.
Your point regarding "unproductive"
surrounding the concept of "burden of
proof" is regrettably wrong. How can
burden of proof be dismissed as
unproductive when human lives are at
stake?
Thanks for the welcome.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-15-08 13:49pm
You'll also notice she said "IF the fetus
is a human being".
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-15-08 13:50pm
Jincks013
wrote:
At which stage, Dolphin,
should we commence criminal capital cases
against feti? Analogizing is nice but your
entire post is a insufficient premise and
faulty anology
fallacy.
At the very least, shouldn’t we have an
official inquiry to address the issue of
whether the prenatal life is a human being
or just a blob of human tissue cells
before we kill it?
Do you think by requiring burden of proof
it is a faulty analogy or do you think
conjoined twins are not individuals? Or do
you think the potential of atomic
explosion exists merely by being
"potential" without the existence of the
atomic bomb first?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-15-08 13:58pm
You don't need an official inquiry, you
need an ultrasound and a physician who is
capable of determining viability.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-15-08 15:02pm
Eiri
wrote:
You'll also notice she said
"IF the fetus is a human
being".
That’s the point, Eiri. She made the
conditional statement and then declared
the fetus as not a human being without any
proof. That was the argument she made and
that was what I was arguing about, not the
differentiation between whether a fetus is
a human being or a human tissue belonging
to the mother. Do you get the point yet?
Eiri
wrote:
You don't need an official
inquiry, you need an ultrasound and a
physician who is capable of determining
viability.
Despite that, falsehood still persists and
unborn human lives continue to be
sacrificed to the falsehood. No, we need
an official determination on record with
all evidence presented for all to see.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-15-08 15:52pm
When she declares the fetus not a human
being, she does so in the same sense that
I do not consider it a Person. It is human
DNA and it is on its way to being viable.
But it's not.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-15-08 18:15pm
Eiri
wrote:
When she declares the fetus
not a human being, she does so in the same
sense that I do not consider it a
Person.
No, she doesn't. Read the article and be
honest.
Eiri
wrote:
It is human DNA and it is
on its way to being viable. But it's
not.
The term “person” is a semantic
alternative used as a synonym for the word
“human being” just like a pronoun is
used in place of the antecedent. This term
was simply hijacked by advocates of
abortion rights during Roe v Wade to
create a smoke screen in order to mask the
truth of the humanity of the unborn human
being.
The elusiveness of the term "person" is so
fluid and subjective that we cannot pin it
down objectively is what makes it so
attractive as a selling point for
supporters of abortion tights. Obviously
for me, I don't accept the term based on
the whims of human definition as a
self-serving criterion for determining the
humanity of the unborn life. Neither do I
subscribe to the man-made allusion of
"personhood". The humanity of prenatal
life based on biological fact, which is
observable and can be handled in the
science lab and fertility clinic is
sufficent proof.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-15-08 20:23pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
Abortion is a death sentence to the unborn
human life. When I say “unborn human
life” I mean unborn human being. The
fact that a suspected criminal is given a
trial but the unborn is not even given an
inquiry to prove his/her humanity in which
there is no crime except to be callously
dismissed as some blob of cells or
tissues, that is precisely the sad part,
Birch.
I disagree. These are not parallels
between a judicial proceeding and the
state of a fetus, just an opinion as to
what is "sad" for you. Applying this
anaolgy in full would require detention of
a fetus. The only people presumed
innocent in the world of law enforcement
are those arrested.
Innocence and guilt in the law are
concepts that require a choice. That is,
one would have to make choices to be
innocent or guilty. I find that fetuses
are unable to make these choices, as are
infants, and they are neither innocent nor
guilty.
On a personal level, since I have no
preoccupation with the supremacy of the
human race, I see the human fetus as only
a biological being devoid of a spiritual
or special significance, I find that
abortion is as "sad" as butchering a cow
for it's flank to dine on.
dolphinocean
wrote:
On your point regarding the
differentiation between “human being”
as legal terminology and “human” as an
adjective, such differentiation is
semantic. In the differentiation between
the prenatal human life vs a
differentiated cells of a post-natal human
tissue, such differentiation is
biological. But, those are entirely
another debate.
The point here is about Wendy McElroy’s
claim made in her article as quoted
below:
If the fetus is a human being with
individual rights, then I am among
millions of women who have committed first
degree, premeditated homicide, and I
should be subject to whatever penalties
are imposed upon that crime.
The word “human being” in her article
is clearly about “human being” as
legal terminology and not “human” as
an adjective such as human toenail.
Your point regarding "unproductive"
surrounding the concept of "burden of
proof" is regrettably wrong. How can
burden of proof be dismissed as
unproductive when human lives are at
stake?
Thanks for the
welcome.
You previously described what McElroy's
usage of "human being" meant to you:
"Unless McElroy has concrete scientific
evidence to prove that at conception a
fertilized egg is not a human being, but
some bacteria, some chicken egg, some
tissue, or some non-living material..."
...It is not clear that you understand
that McElroy did not deny that it is a
biological homo sapien sapien in the
womb (or say it was a chicken egg) but
that she denies that the legal term "human
being" applies.
Additionally, I did not say that "burden
of proof" can be "dismissed as
unproductive", I said that arguments
surrounding the concept of "burden of
proof" are unproductive. And they are in
the abortion debate.
dolphinocean
wrote:
The elusiveness of the term "person" is so
fluid and subjective that we cannot pin it
down objectively is what makes it so
attractive as a selling point for
supporters of abortion tights. Obviously
for me, I don't accept the term based on
the whims of human definition as a
self-serving criterion for determining the
humanity of the unborn life. Neither do I
subscribe to the man-made allusion of
"personhood". The humanity of prenatal
life based on biological fact, which is
observable and can be handled in the
science lab and fertility clinic is
sufficent
proof.
May I ask, what does "humanity" mean to
you and why is that significant in your
belief system?
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-16-08 01:22am
Birch
wrote:
I disagree. These are not
parallels between a judicial proceeding
and the state of a fetus, just an opinion
as to what is "sad" for you. Applying this
anaolgy in full would require detention of
a fetus. The only people presumed innocent
in the world of law enforcement are those
arrested.
Innocence and guilt in the law are
concepts that require a choice. That is,
one would have to make choices to be
innocent or guilty. I find that fetuses
are unable to make these choices, as are
infants, and they are neither innocent nor
guilty.
On a personal level, since I have no
preoccupation with the supremacy of the
human race, I see the human fetus as only
a biological being devoid of a spiritual
or special significance, I find that
abortion is as "sad" as butchering a cow
for it's flank to dine on.
You are correct, these are not parallel.
These are not parallel because that was
not intended. I was merely intending to
demonstrate a basic principle regarding
burden of proof. Besides judicial
proceeding, I can easily use other example
to make the point. For instance, when
somebody accuses your child of stealing,
do you simply accept the charge, or do you
expect some proof? In terms of proving the
case, who do you think has the burden of
proof? You? Your child? Or the person
making the accusation? Or do you think
burden of proof is irrelevant?
Certainly, fetuses and infants can’t
make choices. Nevertheless, in abortion
the fetuses are killed without any regard
whatsoever. If you believe that your child
deserves the benefit of doubt before being
proved guilty of a wrong, how much more
deserving is the unborn life when the life
itself is at stake?
Birch
wrote:
You previously described
what McElroy's usage of "human being"
meant to you: "Unless McElroy has concrete
scientific evidence to prove that at
conception a fertilized egg is not a human
being, but some bacteria, some chicken
egg, some tissue, or some non-living
material..."
...It is not clear that you understand
that McElroy did not deny that it is a
biological homo sapien sapien in the womb
(or say it was a chicken egg) but that she
denies that the legal term "human being"
applies.
This is the problem I always encounter
when debating with proponents of abortion
rights. When it is so plain in their own
writing of what was written,
unfortunately, somehow it can be
interpreted as something else by their
supporters. In this case McElroy clearly
made no distinction between “biological
homo sapien” and the legal term “human
being”. Here are some statements she
made referring to “human being”, none
making any distinction between biological
or legal sense:
If the fetus is a human being with
individual rights, then I am among
millions of women who have committed first
degree, premeditated homicide, and I
should be subject to whatever penalties
are imposed upon that crime. The fact that
I did not know I was killing a human being
is irrelevant, just as the state of
knowledge of a racist who kills blacks
while believing them to be animals is
irrelevant to the fact that he has
committed homicide.
…If the fetus is a human being with
individual rights, then I am among
millions of women who have committed first
degree... The fact that I did not know I
was killing a human being is irrelevant,
just as the state of knowledge of a racist
who kills blacks while believing them to
be animals is irrelevant to the fact that
he has committed homicide.
…The principle of self-ownership states
that every human being, simply by being a
human being, has moral jurisdiction over
his or her own body.
Even if she had made the distinction, it
would be an artificial distinction without
any reality. That would be another
debate.
Birch
wrote:
Additionally, I did not say
that "burden of proof" can be "dismissed
as unproductive", I said that arguments
surrounding the concept of "burden of
proof" are unproductive. And they are in
the abortion
debate.
I don’t think we have gone through the
arguments surrounding the concept of
“burden of proof” before since I am
new here and your previous response was
the first we have so far in this forum. If
you meant by your previous experience in
the arguments with other posters, then I
have no problem if you feel that arguing
over the concept of “burder of proof”
is unproductive. We don’t have to argue
over the concept, we just have to accept
that somebody have to prove something on
their assertion, claim or action that
affects another living being.
Birch
wrote:
May I ask, what does
"humanity" mean to you and why is that
significant in your belief system?
Certainly, and I appreciate your civility.
We may not agree with each other on
abortion issue, but certainly we can learn
a lot from each other regarding our human
fragility. By “humanity” I mean the
state of being human as in human being in
all stages of development from conception
to the end of maturity.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 02-16-08 07:58am
dolphinocean
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
At which stage, Dolphin,
should we commence criminal capital cases
against feti? Analogizing is nice but your
entire post is a insufficient premise and
faulty anology
fallacy.
At the very least, shouldn’t we have an
official inquiry to address the issue of
whether the prenatal life is a human being
or just a blob of human tissue cells
before we kill it?
Do you think by requiring burden of proof
it is a faulty analogy or do you think
conjoined twins are not individuals? Or do
you think the potential of atomic
explosion exists merely by being
"potential" without the existence of the
atomic bomb
first?
You want a governmental inquiry into the
viability of each and every pregnancy
considered for abortion? I think you need
to reexamine your constitution a bit more
closely. Focus on Article four and six.
Your entire post was a logical fallacy
making assumptions of meanings, hasty
generalizations and false cause fallacies,
as you are attempting in your last
sentence in the quote.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-16-08 16:07pm
Jincks013
wrote:
You want a governmental
inquiry into the viability of each and
every pregnancy considered for abortion? I
think you need to reexamine your
constitution a bit more closely. Focus on
Article four and six.
Your entire post was a logical fallacy
making assumptions of meanings, hasty
generalizations and false cause fallacies,
as you are attempting in your last
sentence in the
quote.
What about Article four and six that
prevent us from protecting human life from
slaughter?
Claiming my entire post as logical fallacy
by throwing some fancy terms does not mean
anything when you don't point them out nor
follow them with any argument.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 02-16-08 17:53pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
You are correct, these are not parallel.
These are not parallel because that was
not intended. I was merely intending to
demonstrate a basic principle regarding
burden of proof. Besides judicial
proceeding, I can easily use other example
to make the point. For instance, when
somebody accuses your child of stealing,
do you simply accept the charge, or do you
expect some proof? In terms of proving the
case, who do you think has the burden of
proof? You? Your child? Or the person
making the accusation? Or do you think
burden of proof is
irrelevant?
Maybe I need to back up. Going back to
your original assertation -->
dolphinocean
wrote:
"However, in the fifth
paragraph she summarily declared that
“the fetus is not a human being”
without providing a shred of direct
evidence to support her contention.
Therefore, she is certainly wrong to
contend that the fetus “possesses no
rights” without providing any scientific
proof that the fetus is not a human
being"
I feel that, on the other hand, you
(meaning prolife advocates et al) have the
burden of proving that a fetus is a "human
being" and it "possesses [all] rights".
You have to provide 'a shred of evidence'
to support this assertation other than
just assuming it to be so upfront and
asking that prochoice advocates prove
otherwise.
This is what I mean when I say that the
burden of proof argument is generally
unproductive within the abortin debate. I
feel you (et al) need to prove it's a
human being, and you feel we (et al) need
to prove it is not.
Since "human being" in this sense is a
legal definition, admitted by yourself
with the comments of "rights", I feel the
legalities are on the prochoice side,
since abortion is (mostly) legal.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Certainly, fetuses and
infants can’t make choices.
Nevertheless, in abortion the fetuses are
killed without any regard whatsoever. If
you believe that your child deserves the
benefit of doubt before being proved
guilty of a wrong, how much more deserving
is the unborn life when the life itself is
at stake?
I understand what you are saying, but I do
not think the unborn life is deserving of
anything. I also disagree that "fetuses
are killed without any regard whatsoever".
I would harken you to read stories of
individuals who have obtained abortions.
You will most certainly find consideration
of the fetus within those stories.
Perhaps not your concept of
'consideration' but that doesn't mean it's
absent.
dolphinocean
wrote:
This is the problem I always
encounter when debating with proponents of
abortion rights. When it is so plain in
their own writing of what was written,
unfortunately, somehow it can be
interpreted as something else by their
supporters. In this case McElroy clearly
made no distinction between “biological
homo sapien” and the legal term “human
being”. Here are some statements she
made referring to “human being”, none
making any distinction between biological
or legal sense:
If the fetus is a human being with
individual rights, then I am among
millions of women who have committed first
degree, premeditated homicide, and I
should be subject to whatever penalties
are imposed upon that crime. The fact that
I did not know I was killing a human being
is irrelevant, just as the state of
knowledge of a racist who kills blacks
while believing them to be animals is
irrelevant to the fact that he has
committed homicide.
…If the fetus is a human being with
individual rights, then I am among
millions of women who have committed first
degree... The fact that I did not know I
was killing a human being is irrelevant,
just as the state of knowledge of a racist
who kills blacks while believing them to
be animals is irrelevant to the fact that
he has committed homicide.
…The principle of self-ownership states
that every human being, simply by being a
human being, has moral jurisdiction over
his or her own body.
Even if she had made the distinction, it
would be an artificial distinction without
any reality. That would be another
debate.
I am not sure I understand what all this
means. Perhaps it is not so "plain".
McElroy is stating that the fetus is not a
human being with all rights conferred due
to multifaceted reasons. Since she says
nothing of denying that it is human, that
does not automatically mean she thinks it
is a chicken egg. That was my original
assertation.
Does it help if I say that I think you
will be hard pressed to find a prochoice
advocate who believes that a fetus is not
"human"?
dolphinocean
wrote:
Certainly, and I appreciate your civility.
We may not agree with each other on
abortion issue, but certainly we can learn
a lot from each other regarding our human
fragility. By “humanity” I mean the
state of being human as in human being in
all stages of development from conception
to the end of
maturity.
...and humor me...why is that significant
in your beliefs regarding abortion?
Thanks.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 02-17-08 07:30am
dolphinocean
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
You want a governmental
inquiry into the viability of each and
every pregnancy considered for abortion? I
think you need to reexamine your
constitution a bit more closely. Focus on
Article four and six.
Your entire post was a logical fallacy
making assumptions of meanings, hasty
generalizations and false cause fallacies,
as you are attempting in your last
sentence in the
quote.
What about Article four and six that
prevent us from protecting human life from
slaughter?
Claiming my entire post as logical fallacy
by throwing some fancy terms does not mean
anything when you don't point them out nor
follow them with any
argument.
If you will go back an reexamine those
articles the powers granted in each, you
did know that IS what those articles
define don't you?, you will see
controlling personal reproductive choices
is not in fact a power granted to either
party or person involved whose duties and
powers are outlined therein.
I can see you did not actually go reread
those article so I am requesting you do so
and familiarize yourself with the
consitutional amendments supporting the
prochoice cause before you continue this
line of debate.
A few examples of cases which prove the
consitutionality of the right to choose:
The Griswold-Roe line of cases:
(contraception/procreation/abortion)
- Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), In a
5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
dismissed this challenge to a Connecticut
criminal statute prohibiting using and
counseling the use of contraceptives. The
Court dismissed the case on grounds
justiciability, holding that there was no
actual controversy for the court to decide
because the statute was un-enforced.
- United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62
(1971), [District Court opinion] In this
frequently overlooked pre-Roe abortion
case, the court, per Black (5-4, part I on
jurisdiction and 5-4, part II on the
merits) in a mixed coalition reversing a
district court decision, upheld a District
of Columbia abortion statute against
Procedural Due Process claims. A majority
of the court (Black, C.J.Burger, Harlan,
White and Blackmun) held that the "health"
exception was not unconstitutionally
vague.
This case did not consider substantive or
privacy claims--these would appear in Roe.
Originally, abortion law opponents tried
to undermine restrictive laws that had
"health" exceptions by arguing that the
word "health" was unenforceablly vague.
This did not work in Vuitch, but it did in
California. See, (4-3 decision of state
Supreme Court) People v. Belous, 80
Cal.Rptr. 354, 458 P.2d 194 (1969), cert.
denied 397 U.S. 915 (1970).
- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438
(1972), this crucial (6-1) decision
invalidated a Massachusetts statute making
it a crime for anyone to distribute
contraceptives, other than doctors and
pharmacists prescribing them to married
persons.
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705,
35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) [alternate]
[District Court opinion] [Transcripts of
Oral Argument (#1) (#2)] the landmark
(7-2) abortion decision voided the
abortion laws of nearly every state.
Striking down a Texas statute that
prohibited all abortions except to save
the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per
Blackmun, held that abortion was a
constitutional right that the states could
only abridge after the first six months of
pregnancy.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-17-08 08:51am
Kypros
wrote:
It isn't a prediction, it's a fact. It
occurs worldwide in countries with
restrictive abortion laws.
And what is the source of accurate
statistics on illegal abortions?
Kypros
wrote:
I personally consider that saying that
subjective ideas aren not convincing
enough is itself not convincing
enough.
I place a high value on innocent human
life. Therefore, IMO, simple subjective
ideas do not rise to the same value level
as that human life.
Kypros
wrote:
Equal rights do not entail the right to
parasitically occupy the body of another
human being
Oh, I disagree... since we are all
"equally" here because we did go through
gestation.... and since EVERY human must
go through gestation.
Kypros
wrote:
No one person is equal to
another and I certainly do not think that
foetuses and women should have equal
rights.
As an egalitarian, I take great exception
to that statement.
Kypros
wrote:
Can I ask you, do you think abortion
should be legal for women who were
impregnated due to rape? And what are the
(very few, I would imagine) circumstances
in which you feel abortion should remain
legal and
why?
No, since no baby is guilty of rape, or
even of being an "accessory after the
fact", I do not think that a rape
exception makes moral sense. And I don't
think that "abortion" should ever be
legal, as long as there is a way to have
an "early delivery" of any baby whose
presence in the womb is a threat to the
life of the mother. "Abortion" has the
purpose of killing the baby, and early
delivery does not.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-17-08 08:52am
Georgia59
wrote:
yodavater
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
You are asserting that a nonviable embryo
is capable of self direction and
governance?
It's DNA code does all
that.
look I quoted you saying it.
Yes, you did.... and I stand by THAT
statement. Thank you.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-17-08 08:53am
[quote="futureshock"]
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
It would take too long to explain the how
our DNA guides our early development. But
I suspect you know already, don't
you?
The exact same is true for every single
cell in our bodies. The dna in every cell
directs that cell's
development.
