Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:44:54 GMT -5
For shame.....
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 11:46:21 GMT -5
I know this isn't EE. I gave a definition of "being" yet he keeps saying it was put forth as a definition of "alive". And I have been nothing but civil and oped starts talking about my sperm? Why are you not pointing out other insults of me? Why do you let others call me an ass and insult my sperm yet I'm not allowed to say "learn you"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:51:06 GMT -5
It's kinda EE right now, cme. Watching people try to explain why one person killing the same exact unborn person is manslaughter or murder, while another is just legal abortion of a non-person....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:52:28 GMT -5
It's kinda EE right now, cme. Watching people try to explain why one person killing the same exact unborn person is manslaughter or murder, while another is just legal abortion of a non-person.... It's very mysterious.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:54:04 GMT -5
Yeah, mysterious if you define all words the same way and can't logically draw distinctions or conclusions...
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 11:55:10 GMT -5
Oped I posted a definition from the dictionary. You can hem and haw and gripe all you want but you're arguing against a dictionary. That makes you wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:55:18 GMT -5
LOL!!! Boards suck so bad right now.. driving me cwazzy.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:57:45 GMT -5
What word did you look up again pig?
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 11:58:36 GMT -5
"being"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:00:37 GMT -5
And so, how exactly does the definition of the word being prove that a fetus is a human being? How does the definition of the being prove that a fetus is alive?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 12:07:19 GMT -5
What is more pertinent to this discussion is why the Supreme Court came down in favor of legal abortion. It had nothing to do with the definition of life. It had to do with privacy protection. When a third party harms the fetus there is no element of privacy protection involved. That's why it is not legal. But abortion chosen my the mother is covered under the auspices of the Supreme Court decision. Debating whether a fetus is live or not is an interesting and heated topic, but doesn't have any bearing on Roe vs. Wade.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:11:31 GMT -5
True illegal... but given the difficulty in getting to the point where everyone recognizes that a fetus is not a live, human being... I didn't think we were ready for the arguments that, even if a fetus was a live, human being, it would still not have rights that supercede the rights of the mother.
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 12:11:57 GMT -5
And so, how exactly does the definition of the word being prove that a fetus is a human being? How does the definition of the being prove that a fetus is alive?
The definition itself proves nothing. I was trying to define words so that we had a base on which to debate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:12:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:13:45 GMT -5
Chess, is that you again??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:14:27 GMT -5
Fine. I accept your premise that a being has existance and life. I accept your premise that a human being is a human that has existance and is alive.
That still in no way suggests that a fetus is a live, human being.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:17:00 GMT -5
It comes down to-- pro-choice people care only for the rights of the woman, not the baby. The way they see it is if the baby can't live on its own, it is not a human being. Not alive... even though it is.. and even though it cannot live on it's own for many many years after it is born any way.. but that doesn't count..
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 12:17:42 GMT -5
Great, now we agree on some terms. Let us now define "human being":
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 12:21:25 GMT -5
It is not really a matter of being pro-choice or pro-life. It is a matter of whether one accepts the US Constitution in its current state. In its current state, the US Constitution invariably leads to the legality of abortion. It can be changed through an Amendment that privacy rights do not apply to abortion. To me, that is a slippery slope as the main reason why USA is successful more than other countries is personal freedom. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 12:24:13 GMT -5
the US Constitution invariably leads to the legality of abortion
Really? So that's why it was illegal with the exact same constitution we had before? There are limitless ways to interpret that document. It does not invaribly lead to anything other than whatever powers wish to manipulate out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:26:04 GMT -5
Exactly. If privacy and personal ownership of one's body is superceded by another's potential, then the next thing is compelling organ donation, including live organ donation. If you can force a mother to act as a human incubator, then they can force a person to give up one of their kidneys... which is similar living tissue and has the potential to give life to another person, who it can be argued, has rights that supercede the indivdiual... ... etc. etc...
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 12:28:40 GMT -5
You don't own your body. There are literally dozens of instances where the government tells you what you can and can't do with it. Heck they could draft you and force you to fight for something you don't believe in so that's a moot point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:29:29 GMT -5
Now we are getting interesting again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:39:33 GMT -5
Pig... you don't get to make up your own definitions .. .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:39:33 GMT -5
We do have control over those bodies, too, you know.. there is birth control.. not having sex.. many ways to avoid this issue.
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 12:40:41 GMT -5
Now what am I "making up" Oped?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:45:41 GMT -5
Your handy dandy... pulled out of your arse, pretend definition of 'human being' on the last page... You also haven't attempted to define exactly what the 'live' part of your being definition means. Fine a being is alive and has existance... but what does 'alive' mean... what does 'existance' mean...
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 12:48:30 GMT -5
oped hit the issue on the head. The mother cannot be forced to become a human incubator. That is why abortion is legal. However if the mother choose to become a human incubator and someone violates that right, like in the case under discussion here, it is illegal.
krickitt raised the point of birth control and abstinence. Those are definitely the rights of the mother. Personally I believe that the BCP was far more important to women's rights than Roe vs. Wade. In the states where it is easily available the rates of abortion are far lower. Unfortunately in some states abstinence is preferred over use of BCP and abortion rates are much higher in those states.
Regardless, availability of one choice doesn't negate the right to another choice. For example, if I were prevented from flying in airplanes, there has to be a good, standalone reason for that, and pointing out that I can still take the train is not enough. The Supreme Court found that there is no good reason to prevent abortion.
Dr. Pig raises the point that under the same Constitution abortion was once illegal and it was a case of interpretation. That is true, and that is how the legal system works in the USA. People bring complaints about existing laws to the court system, and the court system interprets the Constitution (state or federal as appropriate). Anyone can bring a case to the courts to try to prove that abortion rights are unConstitutional. That is the beauty of USA.
|
|
|
Post by pig on Jun 21, 2011 12:54:40 GMT -5
Your handy dandy... pulled out of your arse, pretend definition of 'human being' on the last page.. That definition is also from the dictionary. Are you arguing with the dictionary again?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:07:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:57:37 GMT -5
If its the one you wrote yourself... then yeah...
|
|