Dolphin to sum up your last
4 overly verbose posts.. those cases prove
the constitutionality of abortion. I can
see I will have to either explaine each
and every legal reference to you or just
shake my head with an amused smirk becuase
you clearly have no idea of the legality
of abortion and how it came to be and
which branches of government and articles
of the constitution are permitted to
regulate it.
I recommend becoming familiar with those
cases and the articles quoted before
continuing a debate on a topic that you
are underinformed on.
Yoda - look closely at your text book
glossary for "Symbiosis" .. now look at
your text book glossary for "Parasite" you
tell me which one fits pregnancy.
Pregnancy has no benefit to the mother but
her resources are utilized and her health
is placed in danger to gestate.
Therefore Parasiticial relationship is
accurate.
I know my posts have become verbose and I
apologize for that. But, what can I do
when you either couldn’t understand or
purposely becoming evasive that I have to
repeat myself. Also, when debating the
issue of abortion, supporters of abortion
rights usually have different connotation
for common words. In my past debate with
proponents of abortion rights in other
forum they use verbose terms such as
“human being person” or “parasitic
non-sentient entity” or “non-parasitic
sentient host”, etc to get their point
across. Here, McElroy’s ordinary
unqualified use of the common term
“human being” is interpreted as
something else. So, what am I to do
without having to use more words than
necessary to differentiate the two?
Also, in subsequent post of yours, you
tried to parse and twist the phrase about
human life begins at conception. You
should know that the word "human" in that
phrase refers to the human being in the
procreation and reproductive process and
not about evolution since this debate is
about abortion and not evolution. Also,
the word "human" is used in the sense of
"human being" and not the adjective sense
such as "human toenail". Now I've to
write a whole paragraph just to untwist
your semantic sleight of hands. Why do you
complain and wonder why my posts are so
verbose?
Regarding the term “symbiosis” it also
has a connotation of “parasitic”
behavior in one of its various uses. There
are many mutual benefits between the
maternal-offspring relationship. One of
the main one is related to the survival of
human specie as a whole, i.e. the passing
down of parental genes to the next
generation. The other is the emotional and
familial support such as when parents
sacrifice their time and financial
resource for the upbringing of their off
springs and their off springs who care for
their parents when they become helpless
with age. Of course, in life nothing is
guaranteed. But. That’s basically the
way it is. Don’t you think those who had
aborted in the past and then had children
later in their life did so for some
beneficial reason?
Like I said, you can choose to believe in
the negative that the prenatal life is a
parasite or whatever, that doesn't alter
the fact that it is a maternal-offspring
nurturing relationship.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Re: The actual legality of the matter for Dolphin Posted: 02-18-08 14:48pm
Jincks013
wrote:
Constitution & Law
<snip><snip><snip>
.......
Talk about verbose, wouldn’t it be worst
to cut and paste long posts of cases
irrelevant to the point of debate and
without any effort to make any comment
from your own words except to troll and
evade previous argument?
Show me from the Constitution where it
clearly mentioned about abortion let alone
the notion of “women’s rights to
abortion”?
In fact, Amendment X clearly stated that
powers not prohibited by the Constitution
are reserved to the states.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.
The Constitution clearly does not prohibit
the power of the state to legislate law
against abortion. Therefore, Blackmun in
Roe v Wade who struck down Texas state law
prohibiting abortion is actually the one
which is unconstitutional. But, that’s
another debate that is not related to our
actual argument.
I hate it when I have to waste my time
looking for the previous post to pin you
down to the original debate which you try
so hard to evade. It was about my
suggestion of government inquiry to
determine when procreated human life
begins. Here, this was what you said
===>:
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.
So, please show me where in Article four
and six does the Constitution prohibits
government to hold inquiry into the issue
of when procreated human life begins?
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1171 Location: ,
Thanks: 21
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-19-08 07:30am
/purrr... I am soooo glad you asked...
Article IX: The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Just because it doesn't say "women can
have an abortion" in the Bill of Rights
doesn't mean they don't have that right.
Article X: The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The Constitution
never gives the government the power to
make a woman's reproductive choices for
her.
Article XIV: All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of 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;
1) "All persons born... are citizens of
the United States" - only born humans are
citizens, and so only born humans have
rights.
2) "No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States" - your state can't take away your
rights and freedoms. So no state can make
a law violating your right to privacy -
and your right to get an abortion.
3) By forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy
and give birth, you're depriving her of
her liberty, most likely her property (a
lot of money), and possibly even her life.
(And I just learned - most of the judges
on Roe v. Wade were appointed by
Republican presidents, and they supported
it 7-2.)
Which points out exactly how the
constitution is and is not applicable to
the issue of abortion.
I'll give you an example:
There is no constitutionally protected
right to drive. There isn't. It does not
exist.
Yet we have cars, license, insurance and
roads to use them on.
If we are to use the argument that the
constitution does not protect a woman’s
right of choice and ban abortion, not like
that will actually stop it, then we must
ban driving, using cell phones, airliner
travel because none of these are
constitutionally given rights to choose to
use or not either.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-19-08 10:32am
Kypros
wrote:
Fair enough. No source can be entirely
accurate, but we need something
constructiveand credible to go on. Do some
research.
I have. All I found was guesses, done by
biased people.
Kypros
wrote:
and the opinion of the majority of the
people - foetuses are of lesser importance
than women, so in order for all to have
their slice of cake and eat it, we need
fully pro-choice laws in which women who
are comfortable with havingan abortion can
do so and women who aren't don't have to.
Interesting comparison... eating cake, and
aborting babies. What is fascinating to
me is the euphemistic quality of the
statement "of lesser importance"... as if
everyone should understand that it
translates roughly to "of such lesser
importance that it's okay to kill it".
Kypros
wrote:
Some of us naturally get cancer, but we
won't refuse treatment based on the fact
it exists naturally.
Ah, the old "pregnancy is like cancer"
argument. I disagree.
Kypros
wrote:
You are not an egalitarian as long as
you're pro-life;
I disagree emphatically. As an
egalitarian, I place equal "moral value"
on all human life, born and unborn.
Kypros
wrote:
yodavater
wrote:
No, since no baby is guilty of rape, or
even of being an "accessory after the
fact",
Neither is the pregnant
woman.
And yet no one advocates the elective
killing of the pregnant woman.
Kypros
wrote:
I don't see how forcing a rape victim to
give birth to a child she doesn't want
because it was put there by her rapist
makes moral
sense.
Because you aren't advocating the killing
of the rapist (with which I might agree).
No, you are advocating the killing of the
innocent bystander, not the criminal.
Kypros
wrote:
I will guess that by early delivery you
mean that the pregnancy, if
life-threatening, should not be permitted
to be aborted but rather continued until
viability? .
No. It simply means to deliver the baby
intact and undamaged, at a time when the
mother and her doctor agree that it is
necessary.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-19-08 10:37am
futureshock
wrote:
Almost every person alive has DNA in some
cells of their body that are not their
own. Plenty of women have male DNA, and
plenty of men have female DNA. During
pregnancy, cells containing DNA from the
mother transfer to the fetus, and vice
versa. Also, some people are born with 2
different types of DNA, half and half.
These people are called Chimeras.
And none of that disputes the fact that an
unborn baby's DNA is distinct and
different from it's mother's DNA. And
chimeras are a totally different (and
apparently very rare) type of creature,
their dual DNA codes are a result of
merged embryos, not ordinary human
fertilization.
Kypros
wrote:
So the woman's egg that she was born with
is not part of her?
After fertilization, the "egg" no longer
exists. It is now a zygote.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-19-08 10:40am
Birch
wrote:
\ She wasn't saying it's a
chicken egg, she was saying it doesn't
deserve to be awared all the rights of a
"human being". You are saying it does.
.
Actually, being a human being does not
endow anyone with any legal "rights" at
all. Those are arbitrarily awarded by the
political rulers of each country. And in
this country, the term "legal person" has
been adopted to arbitrarily differentiate
between born and unborn, not "human
being".
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-19-08 10:42am
Jincks013
wrote:
Yoda - look closely at your text book
glossary for "Symbiosis" .. now look at
your text book glossary for "Parasite" you
tell me which one fits pregnancy.
.
Neither.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-19-08 13:35pm
Jincks013
wrote:
Just because it doesn't say
"women can have an abortion" in the Bill
of Rights doesn't mean they don't have
that right.
Article X: The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The Constitution never gives the
government the power to make a woman's
reproductive choices for her.
The Constitution also
doesn't say anything about prostitution or
recreation drugs in the Bill of Rights
either. That doesn’t mean that they may
have that potential rights that states
cannot legislate laws against them. If the
State wants to legislates laws against
such activities, it can't be construed as
unconstitutional. Just let the people who
elected the State to decide. See, your
argument doesn't hold water. But, that was
not my previous argument. My previous
argument was that Blackmum was wrong when
he held that “abortion was a
constitutional right”:
- 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.
To hold that “abortion was a
constitutional right” means that the
right is mentioned or addressed in the
Constitution. Otherwise, you can claim
anything as constitutional right.
It’s true that the Constitution never
gives the government the power to make a
woman's reproductive choices for her. On
the other hand, the Constitution also
never gives women the power to terminate
the life of her unborn child either.
Abortion involves one human depriving the
life of another human being in her womb.
Therefore, per Article X: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people". Since
states have the Constitutional power to
legislate laws not specifically prohibited
by the Constitution, and since state
government are elected by the people,
Blackmun cannot singled-handedly strike
down Texas’ abortion law. What Blackmun
did was unconstitutional, and yet he
turned it around and claimed that Texas
abortion law was unconstitutional. This
Blackmun table turning tactics is the
hallmark of abortion right movement.
I know you want to claim that women have
the power to do what they want to their
body. No they don’t, not according to
Blackmun. Blackmun ruled that women do not
have absolute power to her body in terms
of all stages of her pregnancy regardless
of your claim OF FULL BODILY CONTROL:
For the stage subsequent to
approximately the end of the first
trimester, the State, in promoting its
interest in the health of the mother, may,
if it chooses, regulate the abortion
procedure in ways that are reasonably
related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability
the State, in promoting its
interest in the potentiality of human
life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and
even proscribe, abortion except where
necessary, in appropriate medical
judgment, for the preservation of the life
or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164;
164-165.
Your interpretation of Article XIV is
twisted out of shape:
Article XIV: All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside.
Your assertion: “only born humans are
citizens, and so only born humans have
rights” is a logical fallacy of
abstraction. Article XIV is about
citizenship and not about right to life
when it refers to those “born or
naturalized in the United States” which
you conveniently left out. Not all human
beings in the world who are born are
citizens of United States, are they?
Conversely, the right of citizenship per
the Constitution is not universal for all
human species with your misconstrued
“person” birth right, otherwise
foreigners from other countries are not
“persons” and therefore have no
rights, including the right not to be
slaughtered like the unborn human life.
You also ignore this part: “nor shall
any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process
of law”. Certainly the Constitution does
not say an unborn being is not a person,
therefore in abortion the unborn is
certainly deprived of life.
Regarding: "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States", you are like a bank robber
claiming that no State shall make or
enforce any law against robbery because it
abridges your privileges or immunity of
being a citizen. When you do something
against the law, such as taking a human
life (I don’t want to be verbose to use
the pc term “human being person life”
or “homo sapien sentient life”), the
State has the power to legislate laws
against that. That was what Texas abortion
law was for to protect unborn human life.
Even Blackmun agreed when pregnancy is at
certain point in time which he called
“viability” to protect the interest of
the prenatal life.
Jincks013
wrote:
By forcing a woman to carry
a pregnancy and give birth, you're
depriving her of her liberty, most likely
her property (a lot of money), and
possibly even her
life.
Pregnancy is extremely highly preventable
in this modern medically advanced society
if both men and women take multiple bc
precaution on the few days women are
fertile. This is a choice men and women
can exercise with prudence and not putting
finger on us for your mistakes after the
fact. I know bc is not 100% effective, but
the risk is reduced to zero if both men
and women take multiple precautions, and
be extra careful during fertile period
which is only a few days in a month.
Again, Blackmun also allowed States to
regulate abortion at certain point in time
which means those pregnant women have to
carry to term whether they want it or
not.
Jincks013
wrote:
I'll give you an example:
There is no constitutionally protected
right to drive. There isn't. It does not
exist.
Yet we have cars, license, insurance and
roads to use them on.
There is also no constitutional right to
beat your spouse either. Yet, we have
domestic violence. Does that mean that a
judge can strike down State law against
domestic violence? Not like laws against
domestic violence will actually stop it.
Your example is just too weird.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Keeping it suckers as I can...sorry Posted: 02-19-08 14:24pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
In abortion debate I have come to realize
that I should not assume anything
regarding terms being used. Terms like
“certain rights” and “all rights”
are very ambiguous. Do the terms involve
other rights such as rights to vote, right
to drink, etc? Also, the term “right”
or “rights” can have legal or layman
sense. For example, owning a slave at one
time was legal in this country (I mean
USA). During that time there was a guy
named Brown who spoke out against slavery
and said that no man should have the right
to own another human being. By that he
meant not just the legal right but also
the moral right. Do you see what I
mean?
Okay.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Actually, I don’t call myself
“prolife”. I understand in a debate on
issue, we have to use label to identify
our position and differentiate between me
and my worthy debate proponents.
Therefore, I allow myself to be labeled
according to the issue of the debate.
Since this forum is about abortion and I
am speaking out against abortion,
therefore on this debate issue, I am
debating in the position of anti-abortion.
I know you and others who support abortion
rights do not want to be called
“pro-abortion”. As a respect to your
sensitivity and your person, I would
refrain from using that term. However, I
would not directly use your
self-designated term “pro-choice”
because by calling you “pro-choice”, I
am admitting that I am “anti-choice”.
Since I am not against women who choose to
give birth, neither am I a tyrannical
official in China who compels women to
abort after one child, I am certainly not
anti-choice. Shoot!! Such a long
explanation on a simple term. I
apologize.
Do your interest lie in advocating for
legal restrictions of abortion?
dolphinocean
wrote:
Back to your question on why
fetus deserves the right not to be
aborted. To me I know beyond a reasonable
doubt that a fetus is a human being in the
full sense of the word including whatever
legal sense or added definitions from
abortion rhetoric. As such this right and
the source of this right are no difference
to the right of my next door neighbor’s
child not to be abused or killed for
whatever reason the mother pleads.
How do you know beyond a reasonable doubt?
Isn't it just your opinion after all?
Wait a minute...we haven't really agreed
on a definition of "human being" so those
questions are kind of, uh, rhetorical.
dolphinocean
wrote:
The right to prove one’s
humanity and where does that right come
from is no difference than if you were to
be attacked by some murderous thugs and
that hopefully we have that courage to
step forward at our risk to defend your
right to life. That moral sense of right
and wrong is the source of defending your
right to live. Having said that, have you
ever been called to prove your humanity on
the pain of death? If not, why should that
only apply to the unborn human
beings?
In order to answer that, we are going to
have to agree on what "life" is. I feel
that within my "right" to life (which I
don't know where that comes from,
incidentally-who even says we have a
"right" to life?) I have the right to
determine my personal medical decisions,
and things detrimental to me as defined by
me, I have a right to do something
about within my abilities.
dolphinocean
wrote:
"Just cause" simply means
legally or morally acceptable reason for
the action taken. In this case, the "just
cause" is self-defend when your life is in
danger.
When my life is in danger, I too, agree
that the use of self defense is just cause
in protecting it. I am also using a broad
definition of "life in danger".
dolphinocean
wrote:
If no one is denying a fetus
is human as in “human being” in the
whole sense of the word, then nobody
should kill a human being without just
cause. The term “human being with
rights” is meaningless. We don’t kill
dogs or cats at whims just because they
don’t have human
rights.
Just cause is arbitrarily defined by the
individual.
dolphinocean
wrote:
I wasn’t commenting on the
women’s post in the forum you mentioned
since I didn’t have the chance to locate
the forum. I was simply making a short
clarification without being verbose. The
point I was making was that the stories
should be from person who personally
experience it or from those who are close
to the person who can answer my questions
or relate my questions to the person to
answer.
That's, uh...fine. That's what I meant.
That's why I think you should look at the
posts. They aren't "hearsay".
dolphinocean
wrote:
As to my none reply on
social taboos, I was trying to limit the
length of the post and trying not to be
too wordy already. Social taboos we have
today is no longer the same as in the old
days. For instance, women having children
out of wedlock is no longer a taboo. If it
still is, it’s not like in the Islamic
country where strict sharia is concerned,
muslim women can be killed in honor
killing for simply suspected of having a
boy friend not just pregnant out of
wedlock.
Not true at all. I don't know where you
live, but in my community, having children
out of wedlock, being a single parent, a
pregnant teen, all these things are still
stigmatized against. Could you tell me
when this stopped happening in your area?
Maybe I'll move!
dolphinocean
wrote:
Human being as a specie is
of course different and special than any
other animals on this planet. How many animals
have you encountered that go to school or
design and build infrastructures?
Different and special doesn’t
mean reign supreme. At least not the reign
supreme that abortion does to the living
thing in the womb. The question,
therefore, should be: why should abortion
reign supreme over the prenatal
creature?
(Beavers. Ants. Bees.)
Every species is different and special.
Humans are not superior to any other
creature.
"Abortion" doesn't reign supreme over the
"prenatal creature". The mother does.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Truly, I don’t know why we
seems to be living in a totally different
planets. I can't understand how is it so
hard to accept that a human life deserve
not to be slaughtered without just cause?
I'm staring to understand why you feel
this way (still a little hazy on the
"deserve" part), but my idea of 'just
cause' is different than yours. Can you
understand that this concept varies by the
individual?
dolphinocean
wrote:
I think the core differences
between you and me is that you dismiss the
worth of prenatal life simply because of
its location, size, physical dependency,
and brain function among others. I make no
such distinction because the location,
size, physical dependency, brain function,
etc are just a process of nature and so it
doesn’t matter. What matter is that a
human being is a human being no matter
what size and shapes, function and
location the unborn is. Whatever size and
shape an unborn child is at, it is what it
is supposed to be according to biological
fact. You cannot expect a human being at
conception to be fully formed in an adult
body with adult intelligence. We don’t
expect a newborn baby to be at least 5
feet tall, be intelligent and have fully
formed breasts and menstruates in monthly
cycle, do we? The lack of those yet to be
realized potential doesn’t mean a
newborn baby is not a human
being...
I agree.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Therefore, the same logic
applies to the unborn human
being.
I disagree.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Re: Keeping it suckers as I can...sorry Posted: 02-20-08 00:39am
Birch
wrote:
Do your interest lie in
advocating for legal restrictions of
abortion?
Yes, I do. Absolutely! No question about
it, except in the case when the pregnant
woman’s life is in danger. Nobody should
have a choice to kill another human life
without just cause.
I make no distinction between born or
unborn human life. The only distinction
between a newborn and pre-born baby is
that the newborn just came out from the
mother’s womb while the pre-born is
still waiting. Since the pre-born baby is
still in the mother’s womb, that’s the
reason for the exception for the medical
emergency to save the mother’s life in
case of serious complication.
Now let me ask you, do you not support
criminal laws against infanticide and
unjust killing of children by their
parents for their convenience such as the
case of Susan Smith?
Birch
wrote:
How do you know beyond a
reasonable doubt? Isn't it just your
opinion after all? Wait a minute...we
haven't really agreed on a definition of
"human being" so those questions are kind
of, uh,
rhetorical.
Abortion is a life and death issue for an
unborn human life. To proponents of
abortion rights, it’s just a choice.
Even if you have problem agreeing with the
definition of “human being”, the
benefit of doubt should be given to
prenatal life until you are sure and have
absolutely proven your case with your
definitions and rhetoric.
My position is not base on elusive
definition or rhetoric. I base my
knowledge on concrete biology and not some
subjective man-made definitions and
rhetoric.
The biological reality of the unborn human
life is already known and can be observed
with microscope/ultrasound and handled
with your own hands using
micro-pipettes/surgical equipments in the
science lab, medical facility, and
fertility clinics. Doctors can open the
womb and perform surgical repair on the
fetus and return him back to continue his
prenatal development. The physical
evidence is there and nobody can deny it.
Unless of course if you persist in using
a smoke screen to mask the truth. Do you
know that the term "person" originally
meant "mask" in Greek? It was a mask used
by ancient Greek actors to cover their
face during acting. Such a coincident!
Birch
wrote:
dolphinocean
wrote:
The right to prove one’s
humanity and where does that right come
from is no difference than if you were to
be attacked by some murderous thugs and
that hopefully we have that courage to
step forward at our risk to defend your
right to life. That moral sense of right
and wrong is the source of defending your
right to live. Having said that, have you
ever been called to prove your humanity on
the pain of death? If not, why should that
only apply to the unborn human
beings?
In order to answer that,
we are going to have to agree on what
"life" is. I feel that within my "right"
to life (which I don't know where that
comes from, incidentally-who even says we
have a "right" to life?) I have the right
to determine my personal medical
decisions, and things detrimental to me as
defined by me, I have a right to do
something about within my
abilities.
That’s the whole problem I often
encounter when I debate with proponents of
abortion rights. All of a sudden we
don’t know what “life” means when we
talk about prenatal right to life and your
right to life.
You said within your right to life, which
you don’t know where it comes from, you
have the right to determine your personal
medical decisions, etc. But, where does
that right comes from if you even question
about whether we have a "right" to life?
Without life, there is nothing to talk
about.
Whether the right to life was derived from
ancient cultural or religious moral
consciousness that propels human
conscience into enlightened civilization
with respect for life and human life, it
doesn’t really matter. What matter is
that modern civilized society respect life
and human life based on the principle of
“do not unto others what you would not
want others do onto you”. If you don’t
want others to kill you without cause, you
should also not kill others without cause.
Whether you call it a right or a hope, it
doesn’t matter. What matters is the
respect of life for each other without
trying to justify to do otherwise.
Incidentally, this moral principle was a
teaching from Confucius more than 2500
years ago.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-20-08 01:06am
Birch
wrote:
I have the right to
determine my personal medical decisions,
and things detrimental to me as defined by
me, I have a right to do something about
within my
abilities.
What happens if you are incapacitated and
can’t define nor defend for yourself?
It’s no difference with prenatal life.
Birch
wrote:
When my life is in danger,
I too, agree that the use of self defense
is just cause in protecting it. I am also
using a broad definition of "life in
danger".
Sure, when your life is in danger, that
was the point for the medical exception in
a just cause. Life is life; there is no
broad or narrow definition.
Birch
wrote:
Just cause is arbitrarily
defined by the
individual.
“Just cause” simply means a good
reason. It’s not some kind of abstract
concept that needs to be defined.
“Give me a good reason you can’t
read” Asked the eye doctor.
“I can’t read because I’m blind”
said the new patient.
So, Birch, do you need to ask the doctor
to define what he meant by “good
reason”? Good reason is either
acceptable or not acceptable. Do you think
the blind patient’s reply is arbitrary?
Either she is blind or she is not.
Birch
wrote:
That's, uh...fine. That's
what I meant. That's why I think you
should look at the posts. They aren't
"hearsay"
Yes, I have browsed through some posts
there after you mentioned it. Didn’t
know this site has so many other forums,
including the two abortion platforms and
medical abortion.
Read a few cases of abortion due to rape.
I know rape is a traumatic event,
especially when the victim was a child.
These are victims of heinous crime and
each case is different. Despite such
unfortunate event, the unborn is still
innocent of the crime. Since each case is
different, the psychological well being of
the victims and their needs should be
evaluated by qualified health care
professionals.
\
Since I am not allowed to participate in
the forum which is exclusively reserved
for pro-choice members, I could only form
my opinion in my mind based on what I
read. Even if I could participate, it
would be difficult in the internet setting
to pose questions in a way that wouldn’t
be misinterpreted that might cause open
old wounds to re-surface and thereby risk
endangering possible fragile mental state
that might not have been fully resolved.
However, there was one lady who related
she was raped by a man when she was a
teenager. When she found out she got
pregnant, she finally told her mom. Her
mom blamed her for not telling her earlier
due to lost of evidence which to me was
all she was concerned about. There was
some mentioned that she was also concerned
about preventing the man from raping other
girls. But, subsequent account at the
abortion clinic just didn’t add up. The
story recounted that her mom took her to
local PPH to have an abortion. Now, I am
wondering why didn’t the PPH reported
this as statutory rape to local police
dept since the evidence was there in the
post-aborted fetal remain?
Beside rape story, there was one poster
who regretted her abortion and was so
depressed she wanted to die. Could this be
the true face of abortion that has come to
the surface for us to have a glimpse of
reality? As many as you have rape story,
how many who suffer depression due to
having abortion as this poster, we may
never know…
Birch
wrote:
Not true at all. I don't
know where you live, but in my community,
having children out of wedlock, being a
single parent, a pregnant teen, all these
things are still stigmatized against.
Could you tell me when this stopped
happening in your area? Maybe I'll move!
Well, even if there is still such stigma,
I don’t think it would be to the level
where it became a life or death situation
for the women that the only solution is to
abort. In some Islamic country it may be
true, but not in the US.
Birch
wrote:
(Beavers. Ants. Bees.)
Every species is different and special.
Humans are not superior to any other
creature.
"Abortion" doesn't reign supreme over the
"prenatal creature". The mother
does.
Beavers, ants, bees, etc don’t go to
school to study nor built monumental
building projects such as the great
pyramids. They don’t keep historical
records for the next generations nor
accumulate knowledge in library. They
don’t have written and verbal language,
and do not form cultures.
Every species is special and different,
yes. But, when it comes to humans we are
unique among all animals.
If no human being should reign supreme to
animals, then why should abortive woman
reign supreme over her unborn child?
Birch
wrote:
I'm staring to understand
why you feel this way (still a little hazy
on the "deserve" part), but my idea of
'just cause' is different than yours. Can
you understand that this concept varies by
the
individual?
There is only one just cause in this case,
i.e. self defense when your life is in
danger. How much can you vary from the
notion that your life is in danger? None
at all if you compare it to the
justification for abortion choice. If you
can accept such a widely varying reasons
to justify women’s choice to abortion, I
don’t see why you should find fault with
one just cause for terminating the life of
an unborn child.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1171 Location: ,
Thanks: 21
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-20-08 06:51am
dolphinocean
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
Just because it doesn't say
"women can have an abortion" in the Bill
of Rights doesn't mean they don't have
that right.
Article X: The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The Constitution never gives the
government the power to make a woman's
reproductive choices for her.
The Constitution also
doesn't say anything about prostitution or
recreation drugs in the Bill of Rights
either. That doesn’t mean that they may
have that potential rights that states
cannot legislate laws against them. If the
State wants to legislates laws against
such activities, it can't be construed as
unconstitutional. Just let the people who
elected the State to decide. See, your
argument doesn't hold water. But, that was
not my previous argument. My previous
argument was that Blackmum was wrong when
he held that “abortion was a
constitutional right”:
- 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.
To hold that “abortion was a
constitutional right” means that the
right is mentioned or addressed in the
Constitution. Otherwise, you can claim
anything as constitutional right.
It’s true that the Constitution never
gives the government the power to make a
woman's reproductive choices for her. On
the other hand, the Constitution also
never gives women the power to terminate
the life of her unborn child either.
Abortion involves one human depriving the
life of another human being in her womb.
Therefore, per Article X: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people". Since
states have the Constitutional power to
legislate laws not specifically prohibited
by the Constitution, and since state
government are elected by the people,
Blackmun cannot singled-handedly strike
down Texas’ abortion law. What Blackmun
did was unconstitutional, and yet he
turned it around and claimed that Texas
abortion law was unconstitutional. This
Blackmun table turning tactics is the
hallmark of abortion right movement.
I know you want to claim that women have
the power to do what they want to their
body. No they don’t, not according to
Blackmun. Blackmun ruled that women do not
have absolute power to her body in terms
of all stages of her pregnancy regardless
of your claim OF FULL BODILY CONTROL:
For the stage subsequent to
approximately the end of the first
trimester, the State, in promoting its
interest in the health of the mother, may,
if it chooses, regulate the abortion
procedure in ways that are reasonably
related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability
the State, in promoting its
interest in the potentiality of human
life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and
even proscribe, abortion except where
necessary, in appropriate medical
judgment, for the preservation of the life
or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164;
164-165.
Your interpretation of Article XIV is
twisted out of shape:
Article XIV: All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside.
Your assertion: “only born humans are
citizens, and so only born humans have
rights” is a logical fallacy of
abstraction. Article XIV is about
citizenship and not about right to life
when it refers to those “born or
naturalized in the United States” which
you conveniently left out. Not all human
beings in the world who are born are
citizens of United States, are they?
Conversely, the right of citizenship per
the Constitution is not universal for all
human species with your misconstrued
“person” birth right, otherwise
foreigners from other countries are not
“persons” and therefore have no
rights, including the right not to be
slaughtered like the unborn human life.
You also ignore this part: “nor shall
any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process
of law”. Certainly the Constitution does
not say an unborn being is not a person,
therefore in abortion the unborn is
certainly deprived of life.
Regarding: "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States", you are like a bank robber
claiming that no State shall make or
enforce any law against robbery because it
abridges your privileges or immunity of
being a citizen. When you do something
against the law, such as taking a human
life (I don’t want to be verbose to use
the pc term “human being person life”
or “homo sapien sentient life”), the
State has the power to legislate laws
against that. That was what Texas abortion
law was for to protect unborn human life.
Even Blackmun agreed when pregnancy is at
certain point in time which he called
“viability” to protect the interest of
the prenatal life.
Pregnancy is extremely highly preventable
in this modern medically advanced society
if both men and women take multiple bc
precaution on the few days women are
fertile. This is a choice men and women
can exercise with prudence and not putting
finger on us for your mistakes after the
fact. I know bc is not 100% effective, but
the risk is reduced to zero if both men
and women take multiple precautions, and
be extra careful during fertile period
which is only a few days in a month.
Again, Blackmun also allowed States to
regulate abortion at certain point in time
which means those pregnant women have to
carry to term whether they want it or
not.
Jincks013
wrote:
I'll give you an example:
There is no constitutionally protected
right to drive. There isn't. It does not
exist.
Yet we have cars, license, insurance and
roads to use them on.
There is also no constitutional right to
beat your spouse either. Yet, we have
domestic violence. Does that mean that a
judge can strike down State law against
domestic violence? Not like laws against
domestic violence will actually stop it.
Your example is just too
weird.
So since you cannot refute the actual
wording of the constitution you resort to
equivocation, adhomein attacks and red
herrings. I have posted the percise
language which is "Born humans" and that
does specifically say 'born' not unborn.
If you can logically, without personal
attacks, refute the exact wording of the
constitution I welcome you doing so.
Are you denying the right to drive is not
in the constitution? The analogy is
correct. You are using a false analogy
fallacy and completing your erronious
post with a arguement of adverse
consquences fallacy.
Obviously since most abortion law now is
based off the Griswold case you have not
bothered to examine the actual findings
and instead choose to engage in logical
fallacies instead of providing real
information. If you had done so you would
have noted that the decision was based in
the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments
of the constitution.
IF the constitution says the rights are
given to born people then all the
assumptions in the world will not change
the actual legal defintion of who is
covered by those rights.
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of 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."
To break down the first section of the
fourteenth amendment a bit, I take upon
myself do show why this amendment, in my
view, could never protect an unborn the
same way as it protect the born.
1) The first part of the first
sentence(All persons born or naturalized
in the United States) states quite
obviously that you need to be born, or
othervise achieved citizenship (as a born
person) to be protected.
[Naturalized = grant citizenship to: to
grant citizenship to somebody of foreign
birth, or to acquire citizenship in an
adopted country]
2) the first part of the second sentence
(No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States) provides that no states have the
right to infringe on a citizen's rights
and priviliges.
3) the second part of the second sentence
(nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property) show us that
if a z/e/f was to become a person, as
wished for by much the pro-life movement,
we will deprive the pregnant woman of one,
or several, of the rights provided in this
part of the text.
The part stating "without due process of
law" is probably what the pro-lifers
mostly aim at, to make abortions illegal.
This is however refuted in the 4th
argument why a pro-lifer can't use the
fourteenth amendment as a base to make
abortions illegal.
4) The last section of the second sentence
makes it clear why an "unborn child" will
never aceive personhood status. "nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws"
The fourth statement is based upon that
one cannot give equal protection to two
entieties that are inseparable. If one
give the z/e/f the same rights as any
other person, it will immidiatley
contradict the right of the pregnant
woman, as she'll be denied the rights to
life (hers) liberty (hers) property (her
body).
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-20-08 13:01pm
Jincks013
wrote:
So since you cannot refute
the actual wording of the constitution you
resort to equivocation, adhomein attacks
and red herrings. I have posted the
percise language which is "Born humans"
and that does specifically say 'born' not
unborn.
If you can logically, without personal
attacks, refute the exact wording of the
constitution I welcome you doing so.
Seriously, Jincks, can you please tell me
where did I attack you personally? If you
want to make such accusation at least
quote the part where you think I committed
the ad hominen attack.
Jincks013
wrote:
Are you denying the right to
drive is not in the constitution? The
analogy is correct. You are using a false
analogy fallacy and completing your
erronious post with a arguement of adverse
consquences fallacy.
Where did I deny that the right to drive
is not in the Constitution? It’s obvious
that it’s not in there. The license to
drive is a privilege, not a Constitutional
right. The right to abortion is also not
in the Constitution. Therefore, your
analogy only supports my argument that
State can legislate laws to regulate
abortion just as State can enact laws to
regulate driving privileges since both are
not mentioned in one way or another in the
Constitution. Therefore, Blackmun was
wrong to strike down Texas law as
unconstitutional for regulating abortion
just as any judge would be wrong to strike
down a State’s power to enact laws to
regulate driving.
Jincks013
wrote:
Obviously since most
abortion law now is based off the Griswold
case you have not bothered to examine the
actual findings and instead choose to
engage in logical fallacies instead of
providing real information. If you had
done so you would have noted that the
decision was based in the 1st, 3rd, 4th,
9th and 14th amendments of the
constitution.
What’s the point of examining Griswold
or any other judicial cases? We are
talking about the Constitution, not
judicial decision. Judges have no
constitutional power to override,
re-invent, or introduce a new
constitutional law or amendment into the
existing Constitution. But, Blackmun did
exactly just that. So, what’s the point
of examining the judicial cases of such
judges whose ruling in those cases were
already unconstitutional and whose faulty
decision I am calling them on.
The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments
of the constitution, in no way, shape or
form discussed or mentioned anything even
remotely close about women’s personal
issue, let alone abortion or the phantom
right to abortion. Like I said, you can
draw anything out of thin air if you have
the judicial power such as Blackmun and
don’t mind to abuse it.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Still keeping it suckers as I can Posted: 02-20-08 13:04pm
dolphinocean
wrote:
Yes, I do. Absolutely! No question about
it, except in the case when the pregnant
woman’s life is in danger. Nobody should
have a choice to kill another human life
without just cause.
Then why not call yourself prolife? I
mean, it's a non-point, but you said
previously: "Actually, I don’t call
myself “prolife”." I
don't automatically take that as meaning
I'm "anti-life" just as if you said you
were anti-abortion I wouldn't
automatically take that as I'm "pro
abortion". And, as has been eloquently
argued on this forum, technically,
proabortion would be accurate just as anti
choice would be as well.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Now let me ask you, do you
not support criminal laws against
infanticide and unjust killing of children
by their parents for their convenience
such as the case of Susan
Smith?
Was Susan Smith pregnant?
dolphinocean
wrote:
Abortion is a life and death
issue for an unborn human life. To
proponents of abortion rights, it’s just
a choice. Even if you have problem
agreeing with the definition of “human
being”, the benefit of doubt should be
given to prenatal life until you are sure
and have absolutely proven your case with
your definitions and rhetoric.
My position is not base on elusive
definition or rhetoric. I base my
knowledge on concrete biology and not some
subjective man-made definitions and
rhetoric.
The biological reality of the unborn human
life is already known and can be observed
with microscope/ultrasound and handled
with your own hands using
micro-pipettes/surgical equipments in the
science lab, medical facility, and
fertility clinics. Doctors can open the
womb and perform surgical repair on the
fetus and return him back to continue his
prenatal development. The physical
evidence is there and nobody can deny it.
Unless of course if you persist in using
a smoke screen to mask the truth. Do you
know that the term "person" originally
meant "mask" in Greek? It was a mask used
by ancient Greek actors to cover their
face during acting. Such a
coincident!
That is interesting. (The Greek thing.)
I agree that biologically the fetus is the
same no matter what label you attach to
it.
Still I ask what is it that gives this
fetus a trump card? That surgeries can be
performed in utero? Does that mean
something significant? (I'm not being
sarcastic or dense on purpose; I don't
understand.)
dolphinocean
wrote:
You said within your right to life, which
you don’t know where it comes from, you
have the right to determine your personal
medical decisions, etc. But, where does
that right comes from if you even question
about whether we have a "right" to life?
Without life, there is nothing to talk
about.
Hmm. Interesting point. I will think
about that.
I have more of a "right" to make my
personal medical decisions that anyone
else. Logically this makes sense to me.
Can you refute that?
dolphinocean
wrote:
What happens if you are incapacitated and
can’t define nor defend for yourself?
It’s no difference with prenatal
life.
Then my
next of kin get to decide for me.
Like, say, my mother.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Sure, when your life is in danger, that
was the point for the medical exception in
a just cause. Life is life; there is no
broad or narrow definition.
My "life" is more to me than simply
breathing.
dolphinocean
wrote:
“Just cause” simply means a good
reason. It’s not some kind of abstract
concept that needs to be defined.
A good reason to me may not be a good
reason to you. That is why it is
arbitrary. Why your concept of just cause
trumps mine is unknown to me.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Yes, I have browsed through some posts
there after you mentioned it. Didn’t
know this site has so many other forums,
including the two abortion platforms and
medical abortion....[edit for space]
...Beside rape story, there was one poster
who regretted her abortion and was so
depressed she wanted to die. Could this be
the true face of abortion that has come to
the surface for us to have a glimpse of
reality? As many as you have rape story,
how many who suffer depression due to
having abortion as this poster, we may
never know…
Thank you for reading through some of the
posts.
I am sure you came across several in which
posters had abortions and never looked
back, and never regretted their
decisions.
Certainly, abortion is not the right
answer for everyone and there will of
course be individuals who regret their
decisions.
It is illogical to outlaw abortion because
some individuals are sorry they made that
choice.
If you wish, we may outlaw sugar in food
because of the same ideas. Or Yugos. Or
marriage.
dolphinocean
wrote:
Beavers, ants, bees, etc don’t go to
school to study nor built monumental
building projects such as the great
pyramids. They don’t keep historical
records for the next generations nor
accumulate knowledge in library. They
don’t have written and verbal language,
and do not form
cultures.
Yes; they didn't even have to go to
school! They were just born with all that
knowledge! Isn't that amazing. They
certainly do have verbal language and form
cultures. Your view is not so narrow to
think otherwise, yes?
dolphinocean
wrote:
If no human being should reign supreme to
animals, then why should abortive woman
reign supreme over her unborn
child?
Apples to oranges. If a pregnant marmot
wants to have an abortion, she is more
than welcome to do so.
dolphinocean
wrote:
There is only one just cause in this case,
i.e. self defense when your life is in
danger. How much can you vary from the
notion that your life is in danger? None
at all if you compare it to the
justification for abortion choice. If you
can accept such a widely varying reasons
to justify women’s choice to abortion, I
don’t see why you should find fault with
one just cause for terminating the life of
an unborn
child.
That is your opinion. I find many valid
"just causes", including when your life is
in danger. I find no fault with that
particular 'just cause'.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-20-08 13:05pm
I don't know why I write "Still keeping it
as short as I can" turns into
"Still keeping it suckers as I can" but
that is not at all what I'm writing!
Edit: Oh, I get it: the dreaded "a-s-s"
word!
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-20-08 13:12pm
Jincks013
wrote:
IF the constitution says the
rights are given to born people then all
the assumptions in the world will not
change the actual legal defintion of who
is covered by those rights.
What do you mean by the ambiguous phrase
“covered by those rights”? Rights of
what” You know that part was about
citizenship and not driving privilege or
abortion, right? Please either define or
qualify your term “rights”. So, rights
of citizenship or right to life?
Jincks013
wrote:
All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of 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."
When you make an interpretation, you have
to consider the purpose of the document
and be realistic with the context of the
writing of the document.
The Constitution was written in the
founding of a new nation. Its purpose was
to establish the form of government and
it’s duty to the People. As such the
instrument distributed the control of the
government with limits to the power and
defined who are the people to be
recognized as citizens of this new nation
now known as the United States of America.
The part you are talking about is about
citizenship.
Therefore, it was not meant to be a
conclusion of philosophical inquiry as to
determine when human life begins in the
event of human procreation. Neither was it
intended to be a legal document to affirm
or deny life to a person based on whether
you are born or not yet born.
No, it was not about life or death edict,
but the focus was only about citizenship.
To wit: “All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States”. It says nothing about
life or right to life. So, therefore, you
cannot tell me with a straight face that
this citizenship criterion is about the
right to deny and take away the life of an
unborn human being.
|
dolphinocean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Posts: 64
Posted: 02-20-08 13:24pm
Jincks013
wrote:
To break down the first
section of the fourteenth amendment a bit,
I take upon myself do show why this
amendment, in my view, could never protect
an unborn the same way as it protect the
born.
You are making a false assumption. The
citizenship criterion deals with those who
are born. it says nothing about the unborn
just as it says nothing about those who
are injured in accident or are dead. That
doesn’t mean the unborn, the injured or
the dead is not protected, whether same
way or not. The unborn is with the mother
in her womb. If the mother is a citizen,
the unborn receive whatever citizenship
status and privileges as the mother.
Jincks013
wrote:
1) The first part of the
first sentence(All persons born or
naturalized in the United States) states
quite obviously that you need to be born,
or othervise achieved citizenship (as a
born
