A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

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.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

 

[hadit]

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

 

[Jack4jill]

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

Quite a few things happen actually, and if they don't, the neonate dies.
Changes at birth

Among other things, they have to control their own body temperature, for the very first time.

 

[hadit]

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

Quite a few things happen actually, and if they don't, the neonate dies.
Changes at birth

Among other things, they have to control their own body temperature, for the very first time.

And how many of those things transform a baby from an entity that can't communicate in any way to one that is fully capable of communicating?

 

[Czernobog]

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

You're right...partially. What you say is true of any viable fetus. This is why i have always supported restricting late-term abortions to those cases that relate, specifically, to the health of the pregnant woman. Furthermore, if you think a baby is incapable of communication the minute he, or she is born, then, again, you have very limited experience with childbirth, or babies. Babies are capable of communication from the moment they are born.

 

[Boss]

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're doing the SAME thing your ancestors did with black people. You are constructing criteria one has to meet in order to be "deemed" a human being. Biology is clear, it says a human being exists at point of conception-- and not a single one of you morons have disproved this. All you can do is create more artificial, arbitrary abstracts.

Go read some history... blacks were not denied rights just because of their skin color. They were said to be incapable of reason and of inferior intelligence, some tried arguing they were a completely different species. They were widely considered sub-par to white people and therefore, sub-human. I see NO difference in their arguments and yours.

If it makes you feel better to say that I am a "moralist" because I am standing up for human rights, then so be it. I can't change your ignorance or make you any less of a bigot.

 

[Czernobog]

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

Quite a few things happen actually, and if they don't, the neonate dies.
Changes at birth

Among other things, they have to control their own body temperature, for the very first time.

And how many of those things transform a baby from an entity that can't communicate in any way to one that is fully capable of communicating?

Part of your problem, hadit, is that you assume that those of us who are pro-choice, take the extreme position that it is perfectly reasonable to yank a fully-formed fetus from a woman's womb, five minutes before it would be born, dash its head against a table, and call that "abortion". For most of us who are pro-choice, and rational, that is not the case. You see, this is the problem. Most of us who are pro-choice want rational limits on abortion. Most of you who are anti-choice do not. you want all abortion, from the moment of conception banned, unless not doing so will kill the mother. Even your rape, and incest "exceptions" are irrational. Why? If, as you contend, a fetus is a person/human being from the moment of conception, then why should a woman who is pregnant by rape get to have an abortion, simply because it is uncomfortable for her to continue the pregnancy? An "innocent baby" should be killed, just because its father was a monster?!?!

You see? Your (the general "your", not you, specifically) exceptions prove that you moralists are well aware that it is perfectly reasonable to have an abortion for the "mother's" convenience - you just want to be the ones who pick, and choose what should be considered "convenient".

 

[hadit]

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

You're right...partially. What you say is true of any viable fetus. This is why i have always supported restricting late-term abortions to those cases that relate, specifically, to the health of the pregnant woman. Furthermore, if you think a baby is incapable of communication the minute he, or she is born, then, again, you have very limited experience with childbirth, or babies. Babies are capable of communication from the moment they are born.

Which means they are capable of it the moment before, they are simply in an environment that precludes them doing so. I am very well aware of a newborn's ability to communicate, as I have seen two of my own be born and interacted with them at that time. You do seem to agree with me, however, that a near full term baby is capable of communication, but prevented from doing so by environment.

What do you think of the other end of the spectrum, wherein a patient is in a deep coma, unable to communicate or, as far as we can determine, feel emotions or have thoughts? Do they cease to be persons? There was that case recently where a brain damaged woman was deliberately starved to death because, though she was physically alert, those around her thought she was no longer a person.

 

[Czernobog]

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're doing the SAME thing your ancestors did with black people. You are constructing criteria one has to meet in order to be "deemed" a human being. Biology is clear, it says a human being exists at point of conception-- and not a single one of you morons have disproved this. All you can do is create more artificial, arbitrary abstracts.

Go read some history... blacks were not denied rights just because of their skin color. They were said to be incapable of reason and of inferior intelligence, some tried arguing they were a completely different species. They were widely considered sub-par to white people and therefore, sub-human. I see NO difference in their arguments and yours.

If it makes you feel better to say that I am a "moralist" because I am standing up for human rights, then so be it. I can't change your ignorance or make you any less of a bigot.

To the BOLD: And, I'll tell you what. Bring me evidence that a fetus is capable of reason, and I will be the first one to jump on the "Don't kill fetuses" bandwagon. Until then, it is a potential person. And we already know which i believe is more important between a potential person, and an actual person.

 

[Boss]

A fetus is always and only a "potential" person. It exists within another.

If you lived within something 30 times your size, but had the same brain, I wouldn't call you a person either.

Again.... I don't know what a "person" is because it's an arbitrary abstract concept that can be defined any number of ways. You posted the link to the assorted definitions yourself. But if a "person" is equal to a "human being" then that's exactly what a fetus is and you need to present some kind of contradicting biology to prove otherwise. Size and proximity doesn't change or alter what something is. I'm sorry... that's nowhere in biology that I am aware of.

 

[Jack4jill]

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

Quite a few things happen actually, and if they don't, the neonate dies.
Changes at birth

Among other things, they have to control their own body temperature, for the very first time.

And how many of those things transform a baby from an entity that can't communicate in any way to one that is fully capable of communicating?

All of them. If it doesn't happen you have dead baby.

 

[hadit]

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

What magical thing happens at the moment when a baby passes through the birth canal? The only thing that changes is the environment. The baby is no more or less able to communicate 5 minutes after birth than 5 minutes before. Likewise, an adult in a deep coma cannot communicate, yet you would prosecute for murder a nurse who smothered him/her with a pillow. In fact, an adult in a deep coma reacts less to stimuli than an unborn baby. You could thus say that an unborn is thus more alive than someone in a coma.

Quite a few things happen actually, and if they don't, the neonate dies.
Changes at birth

Among other things, they have to control their own body temperature, for the very first time.

And how many of those things transform a baby from an entity that can't communicate in any way to one that is fully capable of communicating?

Part of your problem, hadit, is that you assume that those of us who are pro-choice, take the extreme position that it is perfectly reasonable to yank a fully-formed fetus from a woman's womb, five minutes before it would be born, dash its head against a table, and call that "abortion". For most of us who are pro-choice, and rational, that is not the case. You see, this is the problem. Most of us who are pro-choice want rational limits on abortion. Most of you who are anti-choice do not. you want all abortion, from the moment of conception banned, unless not doing sol will kill the mother. Even your rape, and incest "exceptions" are irrational. Why? If, as you contend, a fetus is a person/human being from the moment of conception, then why should a woman who is pregnant by rape get to have an abortion, simply because it is uncomfortable for her to continue the pregnancy? An "innocent baby" should be killed, just because its father was a monster?!?!

You see? Your (the general "your", not you, specifically) exceptions prove that you moralists are well aware that it is perfectly reasonable to have an abortion for the "mother's" convenience - you just want to be the ones who pick, and choose what should be considered "convenient".

Oh, I agree with you that, to be consistent, I cannot condemn a baby to death because of the circumstances around his/her conception. I also have a tremendous amount of compassion for women that find themselves in the position of being pregnant at an impossible time of life and would have a hard time sentencing many of them to prison time. Heck, my son got a girl pregnant, so we brought them into our house until they could form a true family because we could not bear the thought of our grandchild being away from us or killed for convenience. I also agree that we have to do a lot better to help these little ones who are born to mothers who cannot/will not take care of them, see previous sentence. I realize all that.

I do, however, find some on the other side perfectly content with the idea that, as long as the baby doesn't completely exit the birth canal, it's perfectly ethical to kill him/her in whatever fashion they wish. Obviously, you do not hold that view. That is why I said earlier that you and I are not too far apart. What I am doing is holding the arguments for abortion up to scrutiny, to see if they really hold water. I have not found many yet that do.

 

[Boss]

To the BOLD: And, I'll tell you what. Bring me evidence that a fetus is capable of reason, and I will be the first one to jump on the "Don't kill fetuses" bandwagon. Until then, it is a potential person. And we already know which i believe is more important between a potential person, and an actual person.

I'm sorry but meeting some artificial threshold for "reason" has nothing to do with what something biologically IS. There are people in hospitals all over the country with brain damage who are incapable of reason at this time, they didn't cease to be human beings.

You should be particularly worried about establishing this as the criteria for humans because you seem to be mildly retarded when it comes to rational thought. I could see just a short way down the slippery slope where we could deem that you're not really a person... you've not met the criteria for reasoned thought.

 

[Czernobog]

I do, however, find some on the other side perfectly content with the idea that, as long as the baby doesn't completely exit the birth canal, it's perfectly ethical to kill him/her in whatever fashion they wish. Obviously, you do not hold that view. That is why I said earlier that you and I are not too far apart. What I am doing is holding the arguments for abortion up to scrutiny, to see if they really hold water. I have not found many yet that do.

That's not exactly true. What you have found is that very few arguments for late-term abortions "hold water". I would agree with you. However, that does not mean that no argument for abortion, period, is rational.

 

[Czernobog]

To the BOLD: And, I'll tell you what. Bring me evidence that a fetus is capable of reason, and I will be the first one to jump on the "Don't kill fetuses" bandwagon. Until then, it is a potential person. And we already know which i believe is more important between a potential person, and an actual person.

I'm sorry but meeting some artificial threshold for "reason" has nothing to do with what something biologically IS. There are people in hospitals all over the country with brain damage who are incapable of reason at this time, they didn't cease to be human beings.

You should be particularly worried about establishing this as the criteria for humans because you seem to be mildly retarded when it comes to rational thought. I could see just a short way down the slippery slope where we could deem that you're not really a person... you've not met the criteria for reasoned thought.

Well, the American people, and the Constitution, would seem to disagree with you. I refer you back to the 14th amendment. It clearly defined who is, and is not eligible for the protections enumerated in the Constitution, and "conceived" is not among them.

 

[Boss]

Well, the American people, and the Constitution, would seem to disagree with you. I refer you back to the 14th amendment. It clearly defined who is, and is not eligible for the protections enumerated in the Constitution, and "conceived" is not among them.

*Sigh* ....Amendments, laws, SCOTUS rulings, artificial abstracts.... are NOT Biology!

We are not having an argument over whether or not fetuses currently have full constitutional protections under the law... I think we ALL know they don't. So IF that is your argument, you win! It's perfectly legal to kill your fetus in the US, and that has been law of the land for some time. OUR debate is over whether or not that SHOULD be the law.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, the American people, and the Constitution, would seem to disagree with you. I refer you back to the 14th amendment. It clearly defined who is, and is not eligible for the protections enumerated in the Constitution, and "conceived" is not among them.

*Sigh* ....Amendments, laws, SCOTUS rulings, artificial abstracts.... are NOT Biology!

We are not having an argument over whether or not fetuses currently have full constitutional protections under the law... I think we ALL know they don't. So IF that is your argument, you win! It's perfectly legal to kill your fetus in the US, and that has been law of the land for some time. OUR debate is over whether or not that SHOULD be the law.

Perhaps not, but they are the basis on which our society is based. You know...a "Nation of Laws"? We're back to you are entitled to your opinion, however, you are not entitled to try to pass laws based on those opinions.

I have never once suggested that you should not be allowed to try to convince people who are considering having an abortion that they should not do so; only that you are not allowed to pass laws that dictate that they cannot do so.

 

[Boss]

Well, the American people, and the Constitution, would seem to disagree with you. I refer you back to the 14th amendment. It clearly defined who is, and is not eligible for the protections enumerated in the Constitution, and "conceived" is not among them.

*Sigh* ....Amendments, laws, SCOTUS rulings, artificial abstracts.... are NOT Biology!

We are not having an argument over whether or not fetuses currently have full constitutional protections under the law... I think we ALL know they don't. So IF that is your argument, you win! It's perfectly legal to kill your fetus in the US, and that has been law of the land for some time. OUR debate is over whether or not that SHOULD be the law.

Perhaps not, but they are the basis on which our society is based. You know...a "Nation of Laws"? We're back to you are entitled to your opinion, however, you are not entitled to try to pass laws based on those opinions.

I have never once suggested that you should not be allowed to try to convince people who are considering having an abortion that they are wrong to do so; only that you are not allowed to pass laws that dictate that they cannot.

Of course I am entitled to pass laws based on my opinion. Especially if my opinion is correct and the law is wrong. That's a pretty dumbass statement there... I don't know that you qualify as a human with reasoned thought!

We were a "Nation of Laws" back when slaves were considered private property and protected as such under the constitution. What if someone back then had said... ah well, you're entitled to your opinion that slaves are people but you don't have the right to make that the law! ...That's just plain stupid!

 

[Czernobog]

Well, the American people, and the Constitution, would seem to disagree with you. I refer you back to the 14th amendment. It clearly defined who is, and is not eligible for the protections enumerated in the Constitution, and "conceived" is not among them.

*Sigh* ....Amendments, laws, SCOTUS rulings, artificial abstracts.... are NOT Biology!

We are not having an argument over whether or not fetuses currently have full constitutional protections under the law... I think we ALL know they don't. So IF that is your argument, you win! It's perfectly legal to kill your fetus in the US, and that has been law of the land for some time. OUR debate is over whether or not that SHOULD be the law.

Perhaps not, but they are the basis on which our society is based. You know...a "Nation of Laws"? We're back to you are entitled to your opinion, however, you are not entitled to try to pass laws based on those opinions.

I have never once suggested that you should not be allowed to try to convince people who are considering having an abortion that they are wrong to do so; only that you are not allowed to pass laws that dictate that they cannot.

Of course I am entitled to pass laws based on my opinion. Especially if my opinion is correct and the law is wrong. That's a pretty dumbass statement there... I don't know that you qualify as a human with reasoned thought!

No, you're not. Welll...I mean, you are. We do it all the time - they're called morality laws, and they, invariably do nothing to curtail the behaviours they are meant to regulate, and only end up criminalizing individual choice. Which is why I, and other like myself, will always oppose you, and yours. Fortunately, more often than not, we tend to be a nation that values individual liberty over forced morality. And, when we make mistakes - for instance the 18th amendment - it doesn't take us long to correct ourselves.

 

[Faun]

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

Like all rights -- there are exceptions.