Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NX gen are you thinking a fetus is more important than a living independent fully functioning human?
No, I am thinking all life is equally important, you are the one placing "value" on life, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
if so see southwest's post.
you can't ignore the fact it is law. you don't have to agree. find something immoral don't do it.
Again, law has in the past stated many things. If your point is to argue law, then you have no grounds to object against law when it does not suit your fancy. That is, if law says women can be raped legally, who are you to argue with the law? Right? After all, many cultures have laws that allow the subjugation, rape, and mistreatment of women, are they also right because it is their law? If not, are you not then ethnocentric?
For so long I have wanted a horse ..... a horse to live in my backyard. So it should be up to me and my family. Well the town doesn't agree, and has to impose their beliefs upon me.
At 38 weeks and still within the womb, is it not a baby?
Sure, I'll chop logic with you. @ 38 weeks, the fetus is in the third trimester? If Yes, then under Roe v. Wade, the state may regulate or forbid abortion, except possibly for mortal danger to the woman (the laws vary from state to state).
Whether it's a baby or not - if carried to term, the fetus will be a baby. Someone much earlier on in this thread noted that the fetus has the potential to become a baby. That's a fair reply.
But if it is not and dependent we can kill it right? This is the basis of your argument, dependency?
Nah, that's the holding of the US Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade. The test there is viability - if the fetus is viable (outside of the womb), then it's @ least provisionally a person in the legal sense, & every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.
Sure, I'll chop logic with you. @ 38 weeks, the fetus is in the third trimester? If Yes, then under Roe v. Wade, the state may regulate or forbid abortion, except possibly for mortal danger to the woman (the laws vary from state to state).
Whether it's a baby or not - if carried to term, the fetus will be a baby. Someone much earlier on in this thread noted that the fetus has the potential to become a baby. That's a fair reply.
Why belabor the point?
That "potential" is pretty much based on location in that person's rational.
In the womb, potential baby; with even less development but outside the womb, baby.
That just tosses science and logic right out the window.
Extremism refuses to acknowledge science or logic.
Law has determined the personable means of many over the case of our history. Arguing a case of law in face of this fact is nothing more than arguing semantics to cling to a point. We do not serve law, law serves us. To claim the law is sufficient to neglect the liberty of a life is to claim you support the justness of slavery under the law as it existed in the past.
This means you do not consider slavery immoral or wrong, merely a matter of legal precedence and therefore have no issue with any moral violation as long as the law is made proper to see it fit.
People should be fearful of the likes of people like you, for through law you will make any atrocity acceptable.
(Laughing)
No, slavery is wrong - then, now & in the future. A person cannot be owned, like a piece of furniture.
& yes, you should be fearful - else I blind you with science.
Why do you keep saying human. No one stated a fetus is not human or a person on life support is not human. I think we can all agree on what is human.
As far as rights, no. A person on life support is governed by their surrogate.
Because humans have rights, hence the term human rights.
If a person is in an accident and on life support and has no living will or DNR of any type, can the spouse waltz in and tell the doctor to pull the plug?
Nope. It has to go through the courts because of that person's rights.
It doesn't change the fact that if the government is the decision maker on who is a human, it can also decide some people are not human.
No, not human, who is a person in the legal sense, a participant in the society which constitutes the government. In the US & in any representative republic (& some other arrangements), the people participate in the formation of laws, by electing representatives to the city, county, & state levels of government & to the federal Congress, & to the federal Executive branch. The Congress & Executive between them select & appoint federal judges - the Judiciary.
The overriding lesson of WWII - @ least one of them:
People are ultimately responsible for the choices made by their government. Imperial Japan was punished severely - up to & including nuclear weapons. Nazi Germany suffered grievous losses of material & personnel, & so did Fascist Italy & the other Nazi allies. Germany & Japan also suffered war crimes prosecutions, to drive the point home. There are crimes that are simply beyond the pale - & therefore, we need to keep an eye on our own government, to make sure it doesn't overreach & do evil in our name.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
& counting
