Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[Avatar4321]

Why is it that when somebody signs a contract they are no longer held to their promise.

I mean damn, there was a time if you SAID something you were held to your promise. Now you get lawyers, write binding contracts, and you are STILL NOT HELD TO YOUR PROMISE!

It is starting to get really annoying. Why even sign contracts if nobody is ever held to what they signed.

Its because some contracts are just unenforceable. like if someone promises to do some sort of service the court of equity cant force a person to do that labor. When there is a way to monetarily compensate the person for the breach its the court will allow compensation at law. Its rather annoying really. with that said im off to contracts class.

 

[CivilLiberty]

well CL? comments ???

Well, hmm. They had planned on offspring, so that implies concent. They were married, and he was brain dead, which as far I'm concerned means dead.

Do dead people have rights? Not usually.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

I'll look for information on the actual case...but I'm almost certain that there IS legal precedent of one-time sperm donors demanding and being granted by the courts visitation rights for the offspring of his "offering," so to speak.

It varies on a state by state basis.

And there are "willing to be known" donors, wherein there is to be a single meeting when the child turns 18.

A

 

[theim]

Finally, pity is for the weak. The libs like to give it out to make themselves feel better after they lose elections or anytime after they open their stupid mouths for that matter. The fact that you can even feel pity confirms that you are a sissy-spined lib. You should save your pity for your family, friends and co-workers who have the regular misfortune of being close enough to hear the inane dribble that comes from your mouth. I can just not read your posts.

Sissy-spined lib? me? Whatever you say, Lord Vader.

 

[dilloduck]

Well, hmm. They had planned on offspring, so that implies concent. They were married, and he was brain dead, which as far I'm concerned means dead.

Do dead people have rights? Not usually.


A

IMPLIED CONSENT ??? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Right---they used this guys body without his permission to create a child .

Your argument is cracking me up !!!!!

 

[CivilLiberty]

IMPLIED CONSENT ??? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Right---they used this guys body without his permission to create a child .

Your argument is cracking me up !!!!!

He was dead. In law that makes his rights "moot" in most cases.


A

 

[dilloduck]

He was dead. In law that makes his rights "moot" in most cases.


A

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

ya right :rotflmao: "moot" in "most" cases.

hey--lets abort a fetus from a comatose woman !!

 

[CivilLiberty]

hey--lets abort a fetus from a comatose woman !!

Comatose or brain dead?

If brain dead, and you keep the woman ON support until she delivers, that's no different than harvesting the DNA from the brain dead man.

If you take the woman OFF life support, then she dies, and in dying so does the embryo or fetus.

This obvious truth makes it clear that the embryo or fetus is just a part of the woman, and not a separate being.


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Comatose or brain dead?

If brain dead, and you keep the woman ON support until she delivers, that's no different than harvesting the DNA from the brain dead man.

If you take the woman OFF life support, then she dies, and in dying so does the embryo or fetus.

This obvious truth makes it clear that the embryo or fetus is just a part of the woman, and not a separate being.


Andy

hey shes dead---the father could say that she wanted an abortion--Implied consent.---Just because a fetus is dependent on the mother doesn't mean she IS the mother

 

[no1tovote4]

Comatose or brain dead?

If brain dead, and you keep the woman ON support until she delivers, that's no different than harvesting the DNA from the brain dead man.

If you take the woman OFF life support, then she dies, and in dying so does the embryo or fetus.

This obvious truth makes it clear that the embryo or fetus is just a part of the woman, and not a separate being.


Andy

Incorrect analogy. If the baby had been born and the woman died when the baby was three days old then without help from other people, just like the offspring in the womb, the baby would die. Does this mean that a child born is still part of the woman? The offspring in the womb is dependant on the woman but is not part of the woman, just as they will be after birth.

 

[Bonnie]

Incorrect analogy. If the baby had been born and the woman died when the baby was three days old then without help from other people, just like the offspring in the womb, the baby would die. Does this mean that a child born is still part of the woman? The offspring in the womb is dependant on the woman but is not part of the woman, just as they will be after birth.

Simply and eloquently said!!!

 

[Gem]

This obvious truth makes it clear that the embryo or fetus is just a part of the woman, and not a separate being.

Wow, Andy...I gotta hand it to you. I have never seen anyone make such a crash and burn argument in awhile.

Fight for a woman's right to have an abortion...there are many good arguments for it...but to sit there and say that the baby and the mother are one in the same is laughable.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Wow, Andy...I gotta hand it to you. I have never seen anyone make such a crash and burn argument in awhile.

Fight for a woman's right to have an abortion...there are many good arguments for it...but to sit there and say that the baby and the mother are one in the same is laughable.

Not any more "crash and burn" that some of the arguments I've heard here that were anti abortion. The intent of what I said is that the embryo or fetus shares the life functions of the mother - in that way thhey are toed together as one.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Incorrect analogy. If the baby had been born and the woman died when the baby was three days old then without help from other people, just like the offspring in the womb, the baby would die. Does this mean that a child born is still part of the woman? The offspring in the womb is dependant on the woman but is not part of the woman, just as they will be after birth.

Speaking of obtuse! Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

While the child is inside the woman, it is sharing her life functions. After it is born, it is not - anyone else can take care of it.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

Speaking of obtuse! Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

While the child is inside the woman, it is sharing her life functions. After it is born, it is not - anyone else can take care of it.


A

It is not fundamentally flawed, it is simply a different level of dependancy. Attempting to define a whole different life with separate DNA, its own heartbeat, its own immune system that is simply dependant on another to live and saying that they are one in the same is flawed beyond repair.

Obtuse is taking one statement "Most surgical abortions occur after 40 days" (40 days is in the first Trimester) and turning it into "Most abortions occur after the second Trimester" (Which I NEVER stated) then attempting to use the statement in an argument EVEN AFTER YOU WERE CORRECTED.

 

[no1tovote4]

While the child is inside the woman, it is sharing her life functions. After it is born, it is not - anyone else can take care of it.
A

Except in my analogy I stated that if nobody else cared for the child and thereby clearly understood the different level of dependancy.

It is simply showing the difference between dependancy vs. being the same person. The offspring is not the same as the mother even while in utero.

And while the offspring is dependent on more from the mother while in the womb it is simply a different level of dependancy for a different person, if the pregnancy is 20 weeks along with help from doctors they could likely keep the child alive outside the womb.

If the woman was pregnant when she went brain dead and her body is kept alive the baby would live as a separate entity because of the help of other people. Those doctors that kept bodily functions going simply helped the baby the same way somebody else would help the ex utero offspring. A different level of help for a different level of dependancy.

 

[manu1959]

Not any more "crash and burn" that some of the arguments I've heard here that were anti abortion. The intent of what I said is that the embryo or fetus shares the life functions of the mother - in that way thhey are toed together as one.


A

medical science has kept baby's alive that are born as many as 6 months prior to term...and mom's that are kept alive by machines so they can give birth...so that would be a lead zeplin argument you have there

 

[Gem]

Andy,

You're sinking like a stone here, I have to assume you're smart enough to be aware of it.

You wrote:

Not any more "crash and burn" that some of the arguments I've heard here that were anti abortion. The intent of what I said is that the embryo or fetus shares the life functions of the mother - in that way thhey are toed together as one.

Firstly, we are not speaking of any of the bad anti-abortion arguments out there. There are many, of course, as there are with any heated topic. However, to excuse your own bad arguments by saying "well the other side has bad arguments too" is juvenille. You're argument is poor, admit it and move on, rather than pointing fingers at other people...their bad arguments don't excuse yours...especially since you seem insistent on clinging to it.

To continue, the fetus does not "share life functions" with its mother...it lives within its mother, a seperate life, that is dependent upon its mother for providing nutrition and environment. The baby at a very early stage has its own heartbeat, its own bloodflow, its own brain functions...it moves without its mother moving, sleeps when its mother is awake, produces waste and gets rid of it without the mother doing the same...its an organism feeding off of the nutrients its host provides, living in the habitable environment the hosts body provides, but it is certainly not the same as the host.

Additionally, unlike a tumor, a cyst, a polyp, a knot of lactic acid, etc. a baby (or fetus if it makes you more comfortable) can not be created by the woman's body alone. No matter how hard she tries, no matter what drugs she takes, foods she eats, pills she ingests, etc. etc. she can not MAKE a baby without the help of another person (whether he be present during conception or whether he simply donates the needed portion of himself). A woman cannot produce the fetus/baby growing within her by herself, it requires the combonation of two people to make a completely unique and seperate third. That third is in NO WAY, just an extention, like an extra organ, of the woman. Sorry...no matter how hard you wish it, its just not going to make it so.

Sigh, Andy...its a terrible argument...I'll continue to argue with it if you wish, but considering that medical science and simple, provable, biological fact (i.e. a fetus's genetic composition and actions working completely seperate from its mothers) have proven you wrong...I really think it would be better if we just moved on.

A challenge for you: You obviously feel very strongly about supporting a woman's right to abortion...tell me why without arguing that a baby is not a person with less rights than another person because they aren't as developed.

 

[manu1959]

i think the argument is...that a women should be able to do with her body as she sees fit...men have made the rules about everything long enough...women get to decide this one...and women get to live with their decsion...i really don't think this is a government issue...but what the f do i know i have an outty not an inny

 

[sitarro]

At what precise moment does human life begin?

I haven't read all of the many posts so I don't know if it has been mentioned but I wonder , when does the measurable electrical charge that is in all of us when we are alive and disappears when we die , enter the fetus? I guess this charge is what many consider the soul . I have seen a few people that were dead and a number of animals , it seems more noticeable in humans . I guess that could also be the lack of blood pumping through the body but a person definitely looks different a moment after they die . When does the soul enter the body according to different religions ?