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.
killing a person on a ventilator who also can't survive with out it should be acceptable then?
1. when the saw comes to kill the baby it moves so it has independent thought, if you mean stronger thought processes I guess killing a post birth baby is ok also?
Says our legal system. A fetus does not have personhood status.
A person on a ventilator has personhood. A ventilator does not.
When I look through my microscope at single cell organisms and they hit the light they retract due to neuro/bio stimulus reactions.
The brain in a fetus is not developed enough in the first or second trimester to have independent thought.
A 12 week fetus is not the same as an infant so no killing an infant is not ok.
what is the difference between a post born baby and one in the mothers stomach? the child is still unwanted?
Post born?
FYI a embryo does not gestate in the human stomach.
May I suggest you do some reading on human reproduction. There is tons of literature available on the internet.
killing a person on a ventilator who also can't survive with out it should be acceptable then?
1. when the saw comes to kill the baby it moves so it has independent thought, if you mean stronger thought processes I guess killing a post birth baby is ok also?
The first part of your post has been nicely addressed by another poster.
When you accidentally burn your finger you move it without having to think about it. Similarly, a fetus will move if touched without even the capability of independent thought. It is a reflex through the spinal cord that does not involve the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
what is the difference between a post born baby and one in the mothers stomach? the child is still unwanted?
I stand by what I said, "The truth is that it is better for an unwanted egg - embryo - fetus to never become an unwanted child."
1. The US Supreme Court found ample precedent in the Constitution & law (privacy, the rights leading up to the legalization of the distribution of birth control devices & information, family planning, etc.) to hold in Roe v. Wade.
"The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution. When the court rules against the constitutionality of a statute or an executive action, its decision can be overcome only if the Constitution is amended or if the court later overrules itself or modifies its previous opinion. The decisions are not confined to the specific cases, but rather are intended to guide legislatures and executive authority; thereby they mold the development of law. Thus, in the U.S. governmental system the Supreme Court potentially wields the highest power."
(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
1. there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
2. nobody truly believes that abortion is a privacy issue, just like those who now are trying to use the 13th amendment to legally justify the "right" to an abortion really believes that garbage. If abortion is a privacy right, than all anti gun ownership laws are also a privacy issue. Or for that matter the right for me to murder people in the privacy of my own home.
3. The Constitution doesn't give the courts the ability to declare laws unconstitutional, it was a judicial fiat by the Marshall Court
from Thomas Jefferson on Marbury
Quote:
"In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotations from the Federalist, of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the Government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then, indeed, is our Constitution a complete felo do se. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by, and independent of, the Union. * * * *
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any Government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the Constitution is very different from that you quote. It is, that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution, in the cases submitted to its action, and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them."
So that's one vote.
Quote:
2. Nazi law - Was hardly law @ all. It was merely meant to aggrandize Aryans, however they were defined.
Roe holds that abortion under Roe is not murder. & thus far, states & federal courts have respected that holding.
Nazi law has just as much basis as the supreme court decision.
Nazi law holds killing Jews is not murder, US supreme court holds killing babies in the first trimester is not murder.
Quote:
3. laws are effective by the compliance of the people - The point stands - if no one follows a law, that law quickly falls into disuse, & is subject to repeal. Prohibition was merely the first example that came to mind.
So the proper course of action is for states to ignore the supreme court and arrest doctors for preforming illegal abortions in the states which still have laws against them on the books.
Says our legal system. A fetus does not have personhood status.
legality based on court ruling has nothing to do with this subject.
Quote:
A person on a ventilator has personhood. A ventilator does not.
logically they are the same in the sense they both have no independent ability to live on their own. Your appealing to the law is irrelevant and besides laws change, and courts reinterpret laws.
You logically never separated the 2 cases only said that the law allows one and disallows the other.
Laws change in 1950 abortion is a crime, nothing changed except a judicial fiat, logically you did not separate the 2 cases which is why a court 10 years from now may decide that person on a ventilator is not legally a person
Is killing someone on a ventilator who has no ability to live off it, and in a Persistent vegetative state murder?
If yes explain the difference, if not you are a double murderer.
Quote:
When I look through my microscope at single cell organisms and they hit the light they retract due to neuro/bio stimulus reactions.
The brain in a fetus is not developed enough in the first or second trimester to have independent thought.
1. Here is a video of a 3 month old abortion, seems to have independent thought, baby pain bad
8th month a baby is viable should abortion a crime?
The record for viability is 21 weeks so you agree abortions should be illegal then?
biologically a babys birth is not as big a development as other things. A baby in many ways is much more similar in utero immediately before labor to immediately after birth, than the baby immediately after birth to 3 months after birth. and certainly 10 years later.
Quote:
FYI a embryo does not gestate in the human stomach.
May I suggest you do some reading on human reproduction. There is tons of literature available on the internet.
FYI if you would drop the pompousness, you would know that people colloquially refer to the entire region as the stomach when referring to it from the external point of view.
1. there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
2. nobody truly believes that abortion is a privacy issue, just like those who now are trying to use the 13th amendment to legally justify the "right" to an abortion really believes that garbage. If abortion is a privacy right, than all anti gun ownership laws are also a privacy issue. Or for that matter the right for me to murder people in the privacy of my own home.
3. The Constitution doesn't give the courts the ability to declare laws unconstitutional, it was a judicial fiat by the Marshall Court
from Thomas Jefferson on Marbury
So that's one vote.
Nazi law has just as much basis as the supreme court decision.
Nazi law holds killing Jews is not murder, US supreme court holds killing babies in the first trimester is not murder.
So the proper course of action is for states to ignore the supreme court and arrest doctors for preforming illegal abortions in the states which still have laws against them on the books.
1. & 2. Go back & read Roe v. Wade. As I recall, the SC found that a pregnant woman has a right to choose her medical treatment, in this case, an abortion (within guidelines). The SC found precedents sufficient for them to hold in Roe.
3. & yet, that's been the role of the SC for some considerable time now.
Nazi law has just as much basis as the SC - No. The Nazis were so far gone that Hitler was able to get the military, police, government, churches, universities, mass media, unions, & probably other agencies & associations to swear personal fealty to him. Apparently Germany was so convulsed with economic & political dislocations & rage that many of the citizens agreed enough with Hitler to close their eyes & believe what was convenient.
& the Nazis killed (or assaulted, or exiled, or imprisoned) any political opposition whatsoever, regardless of creed, race, what-have-you.
US supreme court holds killing babies - One, they're not babies, they are fetuses. Roe holds that a fetus is not a person, in the legal sense. & TMK, that accords with notions of quickening, as denoting when induced miscarriage becomes a crime (this is from the common law, I believe). Look into the history of abortion & induced miscarriage.
states to ignore the supreme court and arrest doctors - The states could try that. I think they'd quickly be facing suits for trampling Roe underfoot. But perhaps someone is willing to try.
[quote=suzy_q2010;59024079]The first part of your post has been nicely addressed by another poster.
When you accidentally burn your finger you move it without having to think about it. Similarly, a fetus will move if touched without even the capability of independent thought. It is a reflex through the spinal cord that does not involve the brain. /QUOTE]
There are different types of reflexes, my point is it is independent from the mother.
Quote:
I stand by what I said, "The truth is that it is better for an unwanted egg - embryo - fetus to never become an unwanted child."
And I stand by this, the baby says differently and you are a murder. Even dogs have more morality than you, because they don't kill their offspring.
1. & 2. Go back & read Roe v. Wade. As I recall, the SC found that a pregnant woman has a right to choose her medical treatment, in this case, an abortion (within guidelines). The SC found precedents sufficient for them to hold in Roe.
the supreme court has no relevancy to truth
Quote:
3. & yet, that's been the role of the SC for some considerable time now.
still unconstitutional, After Roe was decided, every state that had it illegal should have said the same thing that legend (don't care if true or false) says Jackson said after Worcester v. Georgia
John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
Quote:
Nazi law has just as much basis as the SC - No. The Nazis were so far gone that Hitler was able to get the military, police, government, churches, universities, mass media, unions, & probably other agencies & associations to swear personal fealty to him. Apparently Germany was so convulsed with economic & political dislocations & rage that many of the citizens agreed enough with Hitler to close their eyes & believe what was convenient.
Go research the Nazi's rise to power only a few things were debatable under Weimar Republic law.
Quote:
& the Nazis killed (or assaulted, or exiled, or imprisoned) any political opposition whatsoever, regardless of creed, race, what-have-you.
Irrelevant, you are to propagandized to follow an argument.
One can make a case that Nazi laws were more legal than the Supreme Court decision,
Laws can say killing certain people is not murder because they are not people. Doesn't make it true.
Quote:
US supreme court holds killing babies - One, they're not babies, they are fetuses.
please explain to my in detail the biological difference that maked killing a baby 5 minutes before birth not a crime and 5 minutes after a crime?
Quote:
Roe holds that a fetus is not a person, in the legal sense.
and Nazi law said Jews were not a person
& TMK, that accords with notions of quickening, as denoting when induced miscarriage becomes a crime (this is from the common law, I believe). Look into the history of abortion & induced miscarriage.
scientifically Roe vs Wade is trash, legally it is trash (even RBG said this), Morally it is trash.
Quote:
states to ignore the supreme court and arrest doctors - The states could try that. I think they'd quickly be facing suits for trampling Roe underfoot. But perhaps someone is willing to try.
and send out the states national guard to protect the jail. would Nixon have send in troops?
As you said laws only work if people enforce them, the court overstepped its bounds and the governor of the state is obligated by state law to enforce the laws of the state.
Curious also as to why you would bring the issue of people on ventilators into this discussion.
People die after being taken off of ventilators every single day.
And it not considered murder.
It’s considered mercy.
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.
Roe v. Wade
