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.
The SCOTUS also confirmed Blacks are not "persons" in Dred Scott. So what does that say about the SCOTUS' ability to determine who is a person?
The SCOTUS can make mistakes.
That being said, they denied Scotts petition based on their findings that he was not a CITIZEN (of which they were also wrong) NOT that he was not a person.
This doesn't make any sense. A woman's choice to have sex is what makes it murder?
Murder is the premeditated, unlawful, killing of another living person. The fact that a woman was raped does not enter into the definition of murder at all.
If a fetus is alive, an abortion at any point is murder. Are you claiming it is not alive when there is rape? How the choice to have sex enters into the concept of life is beyond comprehension. Can you explain why choosing to have sex is what makes a fetus alive as opposed to being forced ?
Seems to be you are calling abortion murder to punish women for having sex. So is that what this is about? Punishing women for having sex?
Of course. This is the point when everyone has to admit they are prochoice, they just want to be the one who gets to say when the choice is ok.
The problem is with their love of the word "murder". Once they start throwing that around (and they all do...it's inevitable) they've already lost the debate and have to hide behind twisted logic and emotion and become totally irrelevant to any conversation. It's almost amusing to see it play out but also a bit sad since I know their brain must hurt.
1. A fetus does not meet the biological or legal requirements for "alive". I have posted on that multiple times in this thread. Go read it.
So instead of clinging to the religious definition...You subscribe to a scientists and a politicians definition.
No better than the religious zealot.
Quote:
2.Didn't realize you knew more than her doctors at NYU med cen. Yes, she was in danger of complete, chronic, not acute, kidney failure (due to a strep infection). So yes, FORCING her to bring that fetus to term would have endangered her long term health and likely would have shortened her life.
Again, you aren't arguing on principle until you can place a static value on one life opposed to the other. And, obviously, the way you backdoor this is by prescribing the premise that a fetus isn't a life. You need the state to go to bat for you in this regard and make no mistake...in this instance... it is simply to give your preference superpowers.
But I will say this...even considering long term health measures...She still could have lead a long enough life to raise a child and see it off...In a way, the action was selfish in my eyes.
Quote:
3. Are we then to assume you are never in favor of allowing abortion even to save the life of the woman?
I'm indifferent..
In fact, the times situations like this present itself are so few and far in between that it should not be used to load debates on the issue.
I have no problem with women aborting in the event they feel their health would be compromised in all honesty. And in cases of rape too...
But not in the event of birth control, no...Abortion should not be birth control.
So instead of clinging to the religious definition...You subscribe to a scientists and a politicians definition.
No better than the religious zealot.
So we are supposed to make LAWS based on religious beliefs? In a nation that was built upon religious freedom, now we are going to force everyone to follow the dictates of someone else's religion? Do the Hindu's get to decide for everyone that no one can eat beef? Should Christians be able to force their religious beliefs on other faiths or those who are not at all/
So this isn't about anything more or less than trying to force your religious beliefs on everyone else.
Quote:
Again, you aren't arguing on principle until you can place a static value on one life opposed to the other. And, obviously, the way you backdoor this is by prescribing the premise that a fetus isn't a life. You need the state to go to bat for you in this regard and make no mistake...in this instance... it is simply to give your preference superpowers.
So lets call a spade a spade, you are never in favor of abortion, even if it means that the mother will die, suffer major health problems, or even in cases of rape. Correct?
Quote:
But I will say this...even considering long term health measures...She still could have lead a long enough life to raise a child and see it off...In a way, the action was selfish in my eyes.
You call 4 years long enough? The average dialysis patient lives for 4 years once they go on dialysis. But according to you my cousins only value was in brood maring.
She might have lived longer, she might not have but that is HER and her husbands CHOICE not yours. And that is the point. You, nor the government have the right to tell her husband or her family that she has to risk her health or her life for your religious beliefs. Now that would be selfish.
Quote:
I'm indifferent..
In fact, the times situations like this present itself are so few and far in between that it should not be used to load debates on the issue.
I have no problem with women aborting in the event they feel their health would be compromised in all honesty. And in cases of rape too...
But not in the event of birth control, no...Abortion should not be birth control.
And there is the hypocrisy.
If it is murder to abort because a fetus is of equal value to any other human life than there should be no abortions performed ever. Not in rape cases, not in incest cases, not even if the mother will die. Otherwise it isn't really about a fetus being a human life.
You wouldn't allow a woman to sacrifice her already living children to save her life so why make the distinction for a fetus EXCEPT that we already do make the distinction that a fetus is not the same thing as a child.
You are free to believe that if you wish.....but you have no right to force your religious beliefs on others.
Sure we do. Murder is against the law - its being wrong is a religious belief. Check for theft, and polygamy. Laws are often based on religious beliefs. I think you are confusing basing a law on RB's with forcing someone to practice a particular religion. Those are two very different things.
You are free to believe that if you wish.....but you have no right to force your religious beliefs on others.
Atheism, Agnostic, Humanism are ALL Religions really when you break it down. They are all philosophical beliefs that influence one's choices and politics. So the pro-Abortion folk are "pushing" their religious beliefs on those that don't hold this perspective as well.
Sure we do. Murder is against the law - its being wrong is a religious belief. Check for theft, and polygamy. Laws are often based on religious beliefs. I think you are confusing basing a law on RB's with forcing someone to practice a particular religion. Those are two very different things.
You're absolutely right.
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.
