Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

what he's really saying is he knows as much as the justices. His argument is that "the founders wrote in plain english" and screw the lawyers for trying to say they know more than "the people".

once again you prove you ahve only limited comprehension and no psychic ability at all there cleo.

The founders didn't write Roe or Casey and I seriously doubt they wrote any state statutes against murder. They also didn't write the 14th amendment, but its Ok if that confuses you.

What I'm saying is you can read the law for yourself, you can read the case law for yourself, you can read the statutes for yourself, and you can read the applicable constituional provisions for yourself. And, if you have comprehensive and reasoning ability can form your own opinion instead of having someone else tell you what it should be. Your argument of course is that lawers and judges are smart and know about these things so they must be "right". which of course is a clasic appeal to authority.

well, just to clarify, I'm talking about the judges on the USSC. Is that still appealing to authority, or do they have none..

Of course they have authority, that of course does not in any way mean they're either right or wrong, just that they have authority. SCOTUS has ruled in many cases that we today would consider wroong in the past, seriously was Dredd Scott a valid application of constituional principles? How about all the cases where one SCOTUS has reversed a prior SCOTUS ruling? They can't both be right (on tgher other hand there is no implication that either of the decissions is "right"). What more I haven't argued that they are wrong. I might even think they are, but my argument isn't based on them being wrong, its based on the rulings in Casey and Roe as they are. They are the ones who de facto gave viable fetus' an arguable staus as "persons" by declaring the states have an interest in preserving their "lives".

 

[BenNatuf]

Abortion as Murder.

It'll be interesting to see how abortion changes in the future as medical science progresses to the point that a fetus could survive in, say, an incubator after just 6 weeks and grow to term.

I often wonder how many of those aborted would have become something great in our world. Of course, I'm one who believes that everyone can contribute something to our world, even those with a crippling condition like Down Syndrome.

Thats why the medical science is an aspect of the law, the more advanced it gets the further back viability gets pushed. Seems rather arbitrary a thing to base rigid law on.

 

[BenNatuf]

ah.. judge, jury and executioner.

it must be so nice to think one's so much more moral than others.

silliness. I support the prosecution of all murderers. By a court, with a judge and a jury. maybe you'll notice I said they should be PROSECUTED.

and you've been repeatedly told that there is no "murder" unless a statute defines it as murder.

you can't be taken seriously if you keep on saying ridiculous things like that.

once again you offer "nothing". being "told" its not murder does not make it "not murder" and statutes against murder do not typically describe the act itself... only the outcome. If you think they do go find one that defines the act of murder and you might have a point with regard to that statute. Is there one saying driving an ice pick into the heart of another person is murder? No, there's not.

Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another persons life. How its achieved is irrelevant, so the only questionthats relevant here is, is it unlawful. To determine that you have to determine what is makes the taking of another persons life "unlawful" and what does that is either of two things.

1. The taking is not in defence of a threat to the life of self or others.
2. The taking is not sanctioned by the state through due process.

Abortion of a viable fetus where the mothers life is not in danger meets neither test. it is not in defence of the life of self or others and it is not sanctioned by due process. That leaves the question of "personhood" as the only remaining criteria. By virtue of Roe and Casey a viable fetus is arguably a "person" under the legal deffinition since the state would have no interest in preserving its life if it were not. This conclusion can be drawn based on the nature of the authority granted the SCOTUS to determine controversies with regard to cases in the law and the constitution wherein they decided the states have an interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus.

The states "interest" is prima facea based on the states duty to not deprive any person of life without due process of law. That is the only constitutional grounds that a federal court could find any finding of a state interest that would allow any interferance. It is a logical falacy to assume the state would have any interest in a non-entity or potential person. There is no right to not be deprived of potential life for notional persons. The states authority to intercede must be grounded somewhere on some constitutional provision or it has none and the right to privacy trumps throughout. And we know it doesn't because the states authority trumps privacy for a viable fetus. In this case there is only one constitutional provision on which it could be grounded that a federal court could find an interest in, and thats the 14th amendment. The right to not be deprived of life without due process and equal protection under the law applies to "persons", therefore a viable fetus MUST be a person or it does not apply in which case there is no state "interest" to ballance.

So, if a viable fetus is a person under the 14th (which they must be) and since the equal protection clause mandates that there not be seperate classes of people for whom the law applies differently, then a viable fetus must be afforded protection equally with all other persons in a given jurisdiction. If one person is protected from murder by the threat of state sanction against their murderers in a jurisdiction then all persons must be protected by the same statute.

 

[Cecilie1200]

once again

^^^an appeal to authority^^^^

do you know what that term means?

yeah, and i've pretty much displayed it... do you?how about the constituion and reading comprehension? yes the courts are the arbiters leagally and how they decide to apply the law is the law, but that does not mean they're always right, and certainly does not mean they can't be argued to be wrong, the simple fact that they are the court does not make them "right", it just makes their opinions authoritative

and discussion about decided cases?

how about the cases, the laws and how they are applied constituionally? Do you need someone else to tell you wht to think for everyhting or just what you shoulod think about the law?

someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?

Why would you be so hard on yourself?

laws are written, they are in english for the most part, they have application which can be discovered in case law, they relate to specific authorities granted government in constitutions. They are generally logical (not to be confused with neccessary or even smart). Any person with good comprehensive ability and decent logical reasoning ability and a basic understanding of legal terminology can form a opinion on them and their application without needing the "advice" of a lawyer (which incidently is only as good as the lawyer) or anyone else to tell them what they "mean".

And we're all in deep shit when the governed decide to put aside their own common sense and stop monitoring what the governing are doing in their name because "they're the experts; they know more than we do".

 

[Cecilie1200]

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?

the little pissant keeps repeating certain buzz words because he heard someone use them.

why do you think someone like him, who clearly knows nothing, thinks he should be taken seriously?

Certainly doesn't stop YOU.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion as Murder.

It'll be interesting to see how abortion changes in the future as medical science progresses to the point that a fetus could survive in, say, an incubator after just 6 weeks and grow to term.

I often wonder how many of those aborted would have become something great in our world. Of course, I'm one who believes that everyone can contribute something to our world, even those with a crippling condition like Down Syndrome.

The sad thing is that, in most cases, the only "crippling condition" those babies had was a selfish slut for a mother.

 

[Dr Grump]

Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?

the little pissant keeps repeating certain buzz words because he heard someone use them.

why do you think someone like him, who clearly knows nothing, thinks he should be taken seriously?

Certainly doesn't stop YOU.

or you...shrug...

 

[BenNatuf]

do you know what that term means?

yeah, and i've pretty much displayed it... do you?how about the constituion and reading comprehension? yes the courts are the arbiters leagally and how they decide to apply the law is the law, but that does not mean they're always right, and certainly does not mean they can't be argued to be wrong, the simple fact that they are the court does not make them "right", it just makes their opinions authoritativehow about the cases, the laws and how they are applied constituionally? Do you need someone else to tell you wht to think for everyhting or just what you shoulod think about the law?

someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?

Why would you be so hard on yourself?

laws are written, they are in english for the most part, they have application which can be discovered in case law, they relate to specific authorities granted government in constitutions. They are generally logical (not to be confused with neccessary or even smart). Any person with good comprehensive ability and decent logical reasoning ability and a basic understanding of legal terminology can form a opinion on them and their application without needing the "advice" of a lawyer (which incidently is only as good as the lawyer) or anyone else to tell them what they "mean".

And we're all in deep shit when the governed decide to put aside their own common sense and stop monitor what the governing are doing in their name because "they're the experts; they know more than we do".

Seems to be the progressive way to do things. Put "experts" in charge and wash your hands of any responsibility for the outcome. They need their scapegoats.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another persons life. How its achieved is irrelevant, so the only questionthats relevant here is, is it unlawful. To determine that you have to determine what is makes the taking of another persons life "unlawful" and what does that is either of two things.

That leaves the question of "personhood" as the only remaining criteria. By virtue of Roe and Casey a viable fetus is arguably a "person" under the legal deffinition since the state would have no interest in preserving its life if it were not.

You are correct in stating it all comes down to personhood. But the only argument you have offered so far has been that the fetus is arguably a person based on conclusions you personally drew, that are not explicitly stated anywhere.

I had previously asked you what determines when a person is a person, and you responded "science." I am still looking for a specific answer, not finger pointing to some other source. If you want to make this point, you need to support it yourself, not some vague reference to an entire field.

Just curious: if there were risk to the mother's life, and a choice had to be made to save the fetus or the mother, could you make a decision?

The sad thing is that, in most cases, the only "crippling condition" those babies had was a selfish slut for a mother.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Could you cite them, please?

You are free to link to any one of the 50 states statutes on the subjecvt and read until you drop.

Oh I see. You want to make a claim and have me do your homework. I asked if you could cite these laws you keep referring to. The answer is clearly no.

Thats whats wrong with Roe, they userped that power for themselves, they have no such authority.

One big conspiracy! It had been challenged by countless groups over time, and upheld time and time again, but one random person believes they are smarter than all the federal courts that have ever looked at this! Amazing!

Well, that would depend on what the law said, but if it excluded a fetus I most certainly would disagree with that law as I do many other laws... it would however negate any legal argument and then the argument would be strictly scientific/moral/ethical.

What makes you think this issue is anything BUT scientific/moral/ethical? Are you serious? Why do you think laws are enacted in the first place? What do you think the very purpose of laws serve? With that being said, why do you so easily dismiss Roe? Claim it somehow doesn't count, if you are only interested in playing to the letter of the law? It's hypocritical. The things you want to count based on the assumptions you draw from them which are not explicitly stated count, and the definitive rulings on the topic somehow should be thrown out. Ridiculous.

This is a scientific/moral/ethical case. Foregoing that to complain about law technicalities which themselves don't quite line up is superficial, misguided, and foolish.

Either a viable fetus is a person or its not.

You used the word "viable" there. What makes a fetus "viable?" At what point?

I don't care what excuse you use to attempt to call the law not the law. If its on the books its the law.

Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!
Because all laws on the books should be blindly followed without question. That sounds good. Let's find some really dumb ones from a century ago which happened to never been removed from the books and see how they apply today.

reading a bit in to that aren't you? I did not and never have said "the moment it touches the uterin wall", I said AFTER IMPLANTATION, which for those with a moderate level of reading conprehension would imply the process was COMPLETE.

Ah I see. And what point is that? What day? What cell division number? What markers are found at that exact point. Do me a favor and just define exactly when implantation is complete, and thus by your definition unable to be cryopreserved.

Once again I see you avoiding the question with these hand-waiving responses instead of investigating the ethics. So what's the difference between a dog embryo and a human embryo?

ones a human being, and the other isn't... I would think that pretty self apparent.

Apparently not. Maybe I'm just uneducated in this matter. So please, explain the obvious difference you vaguely reference yet failed to elucidate in your previous post.

yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development. There is absolutely nothing else it can be. You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is. Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.

DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person. Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA. Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING? Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?

 

[BenNatuf]

Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another persons life. How its achieved is irrelevant, so the only questionthats relevant here is, is it unlawful. To determine that you have to determine what is makes the taking of another persons life "unlawful" and what does that is either of two things.

That leaves the question of "personhood" as the only remaining criteria. By virtue of Roe and Casey a viable fetus is arguably a "person" under the legal deffinition since the state would have no interest in preserving its life if it were not.

You are correct in stating it all comes down to personhood. But the only argument you have offered so far has been that the fetus is arguably a person based on conclusions you personally drew, that are not explicitly stated anywhere.

is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere? Yeah, they are conclusions I drew, just as anyone can. That would be how legal opinions are arrived at. You look at the statutes, you look at the case law, you apply logical reasoning, and you arive at a conclusion.

Tell me "sparky", if the states interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus is not based on it's right to not be deprived of life without to process and the states duty to provide equal protection under the law... what is it based on? What possible "interest" could the state have that would negate the right to privacy?

I had previously asked you what determines when a person is a person, and you responded "science."

that is not what you asked. What you asked was what determines a human being as being a human being... those are different questions.

I am still looking for a specific answer, not finger pointing to some other source. If you want to make this point, you need to support it yourself, not some vague reference to an entire field.

what other reference aside from vague could a "person" be defined under? It's not a science question, it's a philosophy question. If however you want some authoritative source to determine it for you, I refer you back to the definition I supplied from a dictionary...

#4. A fetus

As for a "legal" definition, again it falls to two things, the body of law and what can be garnered from it and argued legally, and the general philosphical bent of society. We can discern from the law an argument that a viable fetus is a person, whether or not society in general accepts that can only be determined by public policy, and the congress has passed no laws or resolutions to determine it. I'm not, and never have claimed mine is the "only" possible argument, but it is one possible argument and it is valid legal reasoning.

Just curious: if there were risk to the mother's life, and a choice had to be made to save the fetus or the mother, could you make a decision?

if I had to, yes. And likely I would choose the mother. Self defence when ones own life is threatenned is always a valid reason to kill.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere?

No, which is why privacy is NOT a global right, although protected in many instances. When you go to work, you have ZERO privacy on your employee e-mail account, but there are still laws against peeping toms. So you offer a poor example.

Yeah, they are conclusions I drew, just as anyone can. That would be how legal opinions are arrived at. You look at the statutes, you look at the case law, you apply logical reasoning, and you arive at a conclusion.

Again, this is nothing short of hypocrisy. In one area you demand that the letter of the law be applied, because it is possible, and in another breath you claim that legal opinions are arrived at by applying logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. Remember that law that can possibly be applied to abortion as murder but no one has done so yet? That happened because everyone else besides you applied logical reasoning to reach a conclusion that is quite district from yours.

Tell me "sparky", if the states interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus is not based on it's right to not be deprived of life without to process and the states duty to provide equal protection under the law... what is it based on? What possible "interest" could the state have that would negate the right to privacy?

The answer is irrelevant. Reading into the anthropomorphized "interest of a state" is completely irrelevant. Nonetheless, I can offer a number of answers to your question which clearly show your assumption is not the only possibility, including reduction of suffering on the mother, reduction of pain on a viable neurologic system, creating a compromise between arguing camps, etc etc etc. But again, we're not talking about aborting viable fetuses. The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now.

that is not what you asked. What you asked was what determines a human being as being a human being... those are different questions.

Oh I see what has confused you so much. Let me know if you can figure out an answer for either question then dear.

Let's start with just one, as two seems to be difficult for you: what makes someone a human being?

Just curious: if there were risk to the mother's life, and a choice had to be made to save the fetus or the mother, could you make a decision?

if I had to, yes. And likely I would choose the mother. Self defence when ones own life is threatenned is always a valid reason to kill.

Self defense?

And what if you were making the decision for another person. A partner or family member, perhaps? Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?

 

[BenNatuf]

Could you cite them, please?

You are free to link to any one of the 50 states statutes on the subjecvt and read until you drop.

Oh I see. You want to make a claim and have me do your homework. I asked if you could cite these laws you keep referring to. The answer is clearly no.

the answer is clearly that you're not a bright as you think you are. Are you not aware of the statutes against murder in all 50 states? Is murder legal in any of them? Why in the hell would you need a link to a murder statute to know murder is illegal. Your attempted deflection is rejected.

One big conspiracy! It had been challenged by countless groups over time, and upheld time and time again, but one random person believes they are smarter than all the federal courts that have ever looked at this! Amazing!

why in the hell would you expect the court to give back authority it userped? Would kind of defeat the userpation. Once again, I know it's the law currently, but should it be? Did the courts actually haver a constitutional grant of authority to insert there own judgement where the congress elected not too? Isn't the very act of not acting a statement of congressional intent to not act? If the congress has declined to make it the law, no court has the power to insert it as law. They can strike down laws that they deem unconstitutional, but they certainly have no authority to make them up from scratch. Also "sparky" there is no conspiracy involved, they didn't conspire to do anything, they just did it, and the rest of the government let them.

What makes you think this issue is anything BUT scientific/moral/ethical? Are you serious? Why do you think laws are enacted in the first place? What do you think the very purpose of laws serve? With that being said, why do you so easily dismiss Roe? Claim it somehow doesn't count, if you are only interested in playing to the letter of the law? It's hypocritical. The things you want to count based on the assumptions you draw from them which are not explicitly stated count, and the definitive rulings on the topic somehow should be thrown out. Ridiculous.

your entire claim here is rediculous. I never dismissed Roe at all, in fact, its "finding" is the central part of my argument. As to the purpose of laws... well yeah, duh! But that has not a damned thing to do with legal reasoning which is built on the written law not the reason behind it. And when it comes to Roe... there is no written law and the ONLY part of the decission with precedential value is the FINDING. Dicta is non binding and cannot be used for precedent. Once again your attempting to move the argument off of the legal argument onto a moral argument where you perhaps feel more sure footed because the talking points make it so easy.

This is a scientific/moral/ethical case. Foregoing that to complain about law technicalities which themselves don't quite line up is superficial, misguided, and foolish.

your attempted deflection away from the legal arguments is self serving, misguided and foolish. BTW, the "legal technicallities" line up perfectly. Your inability to grasp them is not my problem.

You used the word "viable" there. What makes a fetus "viable?" At what point?

Are you serious? maybe you should read Roe and casey before you attempt to argue about them. A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb. With current medical science, thats at about 4 1/2 months. Also perhaps in your "riteous fervor" you falied to note I've ALWAYS said viable fetus. That would be the only ones the interpretation applies to.

Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!
Because all laws on the books should be blindly followed without question. That sounds good. Let's find some really dumb ones from a century ago which happened to never been removed from the books and see how they apply today.

The law is the law, whether or not its enforced its still the law.

ones a human being, and the other isn't... I would think that pretty self apparent.

Apparently not. Maybe I'm just uneducated in this matter. So please, explain the obvious difference you vaguely reference yet failed to elucidate in your previous post.

already answered and I'm not going to play your little intentionally obtuse game. In fact, you answered what differentiates them yourself, in the sentence after you claimed there was no differentiation. Go figure.

yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development. There is absolutely nothing else it can be. You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is. Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.

DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person. Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA. Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING? Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?

a pancreas is not a human being and is not a "life". It is an organ. the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it. A human embryo fits the biological definition of life (that thing a person cannot be deprived of, but a pancreas can) and it is a unique individual in the species.

What it doesn't fit is the legal deffinition of a person, which would require viability. Kind of silly to argue against a conception argument I'm not even making... don't you think? hard to get away from the talking points for you i guess.

 

[AllieBaba]

"The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now."

You have evidence of this? Because I've looked for stats for YEARS and there are none.

 

[AllieBaba]

And what the hell do you mean by "only possible"? Babies can be and are killed any time from conception to birth.

 

[BenNatuf]

is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere?

No, which is why privacy is NOT a global right, although protected in many instances. When you go to work, you have ZERO privacy on your employee e-mail account, but there are still laws against peeping toms. So you offer a poor example.

Just sillyness, you don't have a right to speak freely at work either... know why? because the government is precluded from infringing on your rights, people can do it whenever they wish and if you don't like it you can sue them. BTW sparky, you also don't own your 'employee email account" so its not yours to keep private to begin with.

Yeah, they are conclusions I drew, just as anyone can. That would be how legal opinions are arrived at. You look at the statutes, you look at the case law, you apply logical reasoning, and you arive at a conclusion.

Again, this is nothing short of hypocrisy. In one area you demand that the letter of the law be applied, because it is possible, and in another breath you claim that legal opinions are arrived at by applying logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. Remember that law that can possibly be applied to abortion as murder but no one has done so yet? That happened because everyone else besides you applied logical reasoning to reach a conclusion that is quite district from yours.

your logical falacy is kind of well a logical falacy. There is no hypocracy in any of what i said, I have expalined the reasoning behind why I think the law should be applied as I've stated. Should one arive there in some other way besides logical reasoning? There is no contradiction there and you inane appeal to a larger authority (once again) is meaningless. That its never been tried does not mean it can't be or that it would be either successful or unsuccesful, and that its never been tried does not mean "everyone else" (your new authority I suppose) reached any conclusion on it at all, that is merely an unsupported assertion.

The answer is irrelevant. Reading into the anthropomorphized "interest of a state" is completely irrelevant.

The finding in Roe is "irrelevant? Better let the courts know.

Nonetheless, I can offer a number of answers to your question which clearly show your assumption is not the only possibility, including reduction of suffering on the mother, reduction of pain on a viable neurologic system, creating a compromise between arguing camps, etc etc etc. But again, we're not talking about aborting viable fetuses. The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now.

Pushing it there now? Can you read? It's the ONLY PLACE I"VE EVER PUSHED IT. How many times do I have to say VIABLE FETUS!!! Its in the fucking OP for christs sake and I've repeated it in just about every fucking post.

As to what the states interest is grounded on, what do you suppose it is? Ether? Holecloth? The states authority to infringe in a right must be grounded on some graqnted authority. Courts are not arbitters of "compromise" they are arbiters of the LAW. What interest does the STATE have in a "viable neurologic system"? I must have missed that authority in the constitution along with how that system is capable of negating a persons rights.

Oh I see what has confused you so much. Let me know if you can figure out an answer for either question then dear.

Let's start with just one, as two seems to be difficult for you: what makes someone a human being?

already answered twice there sparky. maybe you should go back and get that link on reading comprehension and give it a run.

if I had to, yes. And likely I would choose the mother. Self defence when ones own life is threatenned is always a valid reason to kill.

Self defense?

You don't know what self defense is? You have a right to defend your life or the life of others with deadly force. Well established in the law. Why would you find that funny?

And what if you were making the decision for another person. A partner or family member, perhaps? Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?

Already answered that one too... does it always take two or three times for shit to sink in with you? Does it ever?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are free to link to any one of the 50 states statutes on the subjecvt and read until you drop.

Oh I see. You want to make a claim and have me do your homework. I asked if you could cite these laws you keep referring to. The answer is clearly no.

the answer is clearly that you're not a bright as you think you are. Are you not aware of the statutes against murder in all 50 states? Is murder legal in any of them? Why in the hell would you need a link to a murder statute to know murder is illegal. Your attempted deflection is rejected.

You claim you only care about the letter of the law, regardless of inference, meaning, enforcement, or practicality, yet you won't even cite the very laws you claim technically reject abortion? No one is debating whether murder is bad. The issue here is what the laws you continually reference but don't cite actually say, and how they may be interpreted. Nice straw man attempt though.

why in the hell would you expect the court to give back authority it userped? Would kind of defeat the userpation. Once again, I know it's the law currently, but should it be? Also "sparky" there is no conspiracy involved, they didn't conspire to do anything, they just did it, and the rest of the government let them.

And we return to your hypocrisy once again. The laws you want ought to be followed to the letter, regardless of how impractical or misinterpreted that letter may be, whereas you brush aside the issues you dislike by insinuating they ought not really be laws anyway. How foolish.

The conspiracy is not what established Roe, the conspiracy theories are from one random person on the internet thinking he understands the entire US legal system better than every single court that has ever upheld those decisions. Laughable. Precedence is golden in this country.

your attempted deflection away from the legal arguments is self serving, misguided and foolish.

Your attempted deflection away from the REASONS BEHIND HAVING LAWS is self serving, misguided, and foolish. See how easy it is to provide unsupported adjectives? As I mentioned in my previous post and you promptly ignored it, ALL laws should stem from the scientific/moral/ethical issue. Or do you believe people should follow unethical/immoral laws simply because they are laws? Perhaps we can return to the salem witch trials?

Do we really need to review all of the periods in history were genocide and pillaging ran rampant because people will blindly following laws? Or maybe you think we should return to times where laws stated we did not have freedom of speech or religion? Hopefully we have grown a bit more civilized since those times, and can now identify that laws need to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral reasoning, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Are you serious? maybe you should read Roe and casey before you attempt to argue about them. A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb. With current medical science, thats at about 4 1/2 months. Also perhaps in your "riteous fervor" you falied to note I've ALWAYS said viable fetus. That would be the only ones the interpretation applies to.

So why go off on tangents regarding cryopreservation of implanted embryos? What's your overall point at all? The large majority of states acknowledge and accept the viability barrier, with a small minority of areas performing abortions later.

already answered and I'm not going to play your little intentionally obtuse game. In fact, you answered what differentiates them yourself, in the sentence after you claimed there was no differentiation. Go figure.

Ah, the vague "I already did it and won't even post a link of where I did it" tactic. Which means you can't. Good job.

yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development. There is absolutely nothing else it can be. You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is. Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.

DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person. Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA. Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING? Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?

a pancreas is not a human being and is not a "life". It is an organ. the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it. A human embryo fits the biological definition of life (that thing a person cannot be deprived of, but a pancreas can) and it is a unique individual in the species.

Hold on a minute. You did not give the biological definition. You gave the lay definition. And you did not define human being, you defined the vaguest form of "life" and then refused to enter an ethical discussion on the differences.

It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument. But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument. Boo hoo you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

"The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now."

You have evidence of this? Because I've looked for stats for YEARS and there are none.

Looked for years? Have you tried google?
Let me google that for you
First hit. Magic.

Oh, and here is similar information on Wikipedia. Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Internet searching! Where were you looking for all those years?

And what the hell do you mean by "only possible"? Babies can be and are killed any time from conception to birth.

It's amusing when you have no clue what you're talking about yet keep talking anyway, and it's amazing how often this happens. Elective late term abortions are generally banned in most states, and even when that isn't the case, most health care providers do not offer it past that point. Partial birth abortions are illegal.

 

[BenNatuf]

Oh I see. You want to make a claim and have me do your homework. I asked if you could cite these laws you keep referring to. The answer is clearly no.

the answer is clearly that you're not a bright as you think you are. Are you not aware of the statutes against murder in all 50 states? Is murder legal in any of them? Why in the hell would you need a link to a murder statute to know murder is illegal. Your attempted deflection is rejected.

You claim you only care about the letter of the law, regardless of inference, meaning, enforcement, or practicality, yet you won't even cite the very laws you claim technically reject abortion? No one is debating whether murder is bad. The issue here is what the laws you continually reference but don't cite actually say, and how they may be interpreted. Nice straw man attempt though.

Silly and weak attempt at deflection, every opne of the fifty states have laws against murder, in fact they have multiple laws against murder, and if its your contention that any one of those laws exempts abortion of a viable fetus its up to you to prove that. The fact is they don't, and they all boild down to the same thing. Unlawfully and intentionally taking the life of another person. How doesn't really matter.

And we return to your hypocrisy once again. The laws you want ought to be followed to the letter, regardless of how impractical or misinterpreted that letter may be, whereas you brush aside the issues you dislike by insinuating they ought not really be laws anyway. How foolish.

No, what we have here is just you lying. Sorry, but I don't know what else to call it when you lie. Please, enlighten us as to what "letter" of any law you refer to? Do you mean I think murderers should be punished? Well yeah, I do, that would be why we have laws against it. If you're refering to interpreting Roe and Casey to define a viable fetus as a person, then you're way off base, because there is no law to letter. There is only a court finding, which would be an interpretation itself.

The conspiracy is not what established Roe, the conspiracy theories are from one random person on the internet thinking he understands the entire US legal system better than every single court that has ever upheld those decisions. Laughable. Precedence is golden in this country.

did you consult alinsky to come up with this conspiracy garbage? I have not espoused any "conspiracy". The branches of government tug and push at each others powers every day. In this case the SCOTUS managed to grab some. There's no "conspiracy" its the way our government works and why the seperate branches have to jealously gaurd their authority. When you find the part of the constitution empowering the courts to write law where congress has not... let us know.

Your attempted deflection away from the REASONS BEHIND HAVING LAWS is self serving, misguided, and foolish. See how easy it is to provide unsupported adjectives?

BWAHAHAHAHAHHA... skin a little thin? Don't like it when I throw your crap back at you. Too bad.

As I mentioned in my previous post and you promptly ignored it, ALL laws should stem from the scientific/moral/ethical issue. Or do you believe people should follow unethical/immoral laws simply because they are laws? Perhaps we can return to the salem witch trials?

It matters not a whit. What the law is, is what is written, why its written is irrelevant to its application. Courts do not rule on perceptions or intentions, they rule on written laws.

Do we really need to review all of the periods in history were genocide and pillaging ran rampant because people will blindly following laws? Or maybe you think we should return to times where laws stated we did not have freedom of speech or religion? Hopefully we have grown a bit more civilized since those times, and can now identify that laws need to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral reasoning, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

your a riot. pillaging and genocide are the result of lawlessness. Honestly dude, are you drinking? Laws did not give us freedom of speech, you were born with it. And again, you can base the law on anything you wish, once iots written, its whats written that is the law.

So why go off on tangents regarding cryopreservation of implanted embryos? What's your overall point at all? The large majority of states acknowledge and accept the viability barrier, with a small minority of areas performing abortions later.

That is just false. Most states bar a specific procedure which would be used after about 8 months, fetus' are viable LONG BEFORE that, and they are aborted every day and in every state.

Go off on a tangent? I mentioned once in an aside and you ran with it.

Ah, the vague "I already did it and won't even post a link of where I did it" tactic. Which means you can't. Good job.

No, just means I'm not gonna answer the same question from you over and over again because your too dense to get it the first time. You asked the same damned question three times and I answered it every fucking time. have you answered mine yet? No, you've just ignored them.

DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person. Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA. Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING? Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?

a pancreas is not a human being and is not a "life". It is an organ. the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it. A human embryo fits the biological definition of life (that thing a person cannot be deprived of, but a pancreas can) and it is a unique individual in the species.

Hold on a minute. You did not give the biological definition. You gave the lay definition. And you did not define human being, you defined the vaguest form of "life" and then refused to enter an ethical discussion on the differences.

false. I answered both, and I've commented alot on the PHILISOPHICAL definition... there is no "ethical" one.

It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument. But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument. Boo hoo you.

I didn't simply say "that's a loser", i went on to explain why, and once again you are either incapable of understanding or simply refuse to acknowledge it.... it would have to do with that whole "unique individual of the genus homo sapiens sapiens" thing. Not to worry... I'm sure you'll ignore it again. Seems to be what you do when you can't argue a point.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere?

No, which is why privacy is NOT a global right, although protected in many instances. When you go to work, you have ZERO privacy on your employee e-mail account, but there are still laws against peeping toms. So you offer a poor example.

Just sillyness, you don't have a right to speak freely at work either... know why? because the government is precluded from infringing on your rights, people can do it whenever they wish and if you don't like it you can sue them. BTW sparky, you also don't own your 'employee email account" so its not yours to keep private to begin with.

Glad you agree that your example was useless.

The finding in Roe is "irrelevant? Better let the courts know. Pushing it there now? Can you read?

Can you? Why don't you start by pointing out where I stated the finding in Roe is irrelevant? Clearly you picked that up somewhere in your reading, despite me not actually saying it. To correct yet another straw man, what I did say was that the anthropromorphized state interest is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how one interprets the state's interest of the result, but that doesn't make the result itself irrelevant.

As to what the states interest is grounded on, what do you suppose it is? Ether? Holecloth?

Did you miss the part where I stated it was irrelevant? The very fact that you are asking shows it is not a defined interest, and therefore your one unsupported interpretation of Roe should not be taken as such. If you want to discuss WHY Roe ended as it did, we can certainly do that, but all attempts to get you to discuss the underlying ethics of this issue instead of just spewing forth keywords have been ignored, sidestepped, or redirected.

Self defense?

You don't know what self defense is? You have a right to defend your life or the life of others with deadly force. Well established in the law. Why would you find that funny?

So you're defining self defense as defending yourself. Good definition. Let me know when you start to pick up on your shortcomings. Perhaps we should start defining cancer surgeries or the flu as "self defense"

And what if you were making the decision for another person. A partner or family member, perhaps? Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?

Already answered that one too... does it always take two or three times for shit to sink in with you? Does it ever?

Actually no, you answered a similar yet different question. You seem to state things are already answered when it's clear you are just having trouble with the details. So let's reiterate: previously you claimed you would choose the mother in reference to self-defense. Then I asked you a question where you would need to choose between the two options where SELF-defense was removed, i.e. you were not defending self whatsoever and thus your silly application was irrelevant.

But assuming you would answer the same, it seems to me like you hold the life of the mother to be a different value as the life of the fetus. Why is that? If not, why would you pick the mother?