RE: hang on a mo...

RE: hang on a mo... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 12:25:24 PM)
Im meeting the man for lunch. [;)] Didnt want Firm thinking I ran from the discussion.

DomKen -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 12:42:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Ron Paul has introduced federal anti abortion bills that would make all abortions murder. The bill you referenced finds "a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception" and therefore "recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State." Accordingly, it reserves to the states the right to prohibit, limit, or regulate the performance of abortions and/or the provision of public assistance for the performance of abortions without right of review by the Supreme Court. It does not require that the states do so. It does not make abortion a federal offense. And the word "murder" is nowhere in the bill. Thank you for your time. K. No it does not. What the bill states is quote: human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; All states already have a law against one human ending another human life intentionally so the states would have no choice in the matter. For a state to declare a class of person it was legal to kill would be a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

Kirata -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 1:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All states already have a law against one human ending another human life intentionally so the states would have no choice in the matter. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If the states choose not to outlaw abortion, then it isn't unlawful and it isn't murder. K.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 1:18:26 PM)
~FR~ This is now the debate I didn't want to get into. Won't be checking in on it, and expect it to end the same way the others have.

slvemike4u -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 1:49:37 PM)
Yes,we seem to have ranged far afield of the original OP...to wit REpublican candidates committing themselves,were they to be elected Prez,to do anything and everything within the power of that office to roll back Roe v Wade. I still am confused as to how one can ,unfettered,take the oath of office....having already committed to an earlier oath.I know this oath they have signed is worded so as the argument can be made that nothing violates the inauguration oath...but still,one who is elected President is elected President of all the people.....how does the obligation to a special interest,in writing sit with that?

Owner59 -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 1:52:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The Reps were hijacked long ago by extreme christians, and the anti-abortion part of the platform was inserted because of them.The faster any political group can distance themselves from religious zealots, the better off they will be. As far as this specific action by Romney, I would have to look at various factors of how it may help him become more electable, rather than it just being good ethics. Anyone that is a career politician, does not have good ethics. Hijack would imply hostility.They were invited in and welcomed. I think the middle roader republicans believed(at the time) that abortion/privacy rights would never be challenged,not in a million years. The they could sign any pledge and thought it wouldn`t matter,either way. So,they thought,we can get the fundie vote but not have earn it.No worry,the courts will take it out of their hands anyway,and cons can still talk the talk. IMO abortions will aways remain legal but the fundies don`t believe that.They aren`t going to ever give up,even if they kill a whole political party trying to end safe legal abortion.

DomKen -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 1:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All states already have a law against one human ending another human life intentionally so the states would have no choice in the matter. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If the states choose not to outlaw abortion, then it isn't unlawful and it isn't murder. K. There are only a few legal exceptions to murder, self defence being the most common, abortion could not be made one because of the 14th amendment since it would deny a specific class of persons equal protection under the law.

Kirata -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 2:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There are only a few legal exceptions to murder, self defence being the most common, abortion could not be made one because of the 14th amendment since it would deny a specific class of persons equal protection under the law. As usual, you respond by simply presenting an unsupported statement as fact. What is a "class of persons"? If the "unborn" are construed to be a class of persons, then the "born" must necessarily also be a class of persons. And that is not how the law is interpreted. The law interprets a "class of persons" as a particular sub-group of persons (and presumably would continue do so whether they were born or not), i.e., gays, blacks, etc. For example, it would most certainly be illegal to prohibit only the abortion of white unborns. But there does not appear to me to be a failure of equal protection in allowing abortion generally, or restricting it generally, or prohibiting it generally. So, of course, I'm afraid you will just have to back up your claim. [:D] K.

DomKen -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 2:31:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There are only a few legal exceptions to murder, self defence being the most common, abortion could not be made one because of the 14th amendment since it would deny a specific class of persons equal protection under the law. As usual, you respond by simply presenting an unsupported statement as fact. What is a "class of persons"? If the "unborn" are construed to be a class of persons, then the "born" must necessarily also be a class of persons. And that is not how the law is interpreted. The law interprets a "class of persons" as a particular sub-group of persons (and presumably would continue do so whether they were born or not), i.e., gays, blacks, etc. For example, it would most certainly be illegal to prohibit only the abortion of white unborns. But there does not appear to me to be a failure of equal protection in allowing abortion generally, or restricting it generally, or prohibiting it generally. So, of course, I'm afraid you will just have to back up your claim. [:D] K. If the law is changed such that a legal person is a fetus at any point after conception then the unborn are legally a class, as they are identifiable, and they get 14th amendment rights just like everyone else. No law had to be passed defining white or black or any other class in order for that class to be protected by teh 14th.

Kirata -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 2:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If the law is changed such that a legal person is a fetus at any point after conception then the unborn are legally a class, as they are identifiable, and they get 14th amendment rights just like everyone else. No law had to be passed defining white or black or any other class in order for that class to be protected by teh 14th. More of the same unsupported bullshit. Do you fucking not even know what means to "support" your claims? The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Thus, to repeat myself, it would most certainly be illegal to prohibit, for example, only the abortion of white unborns. But there does not appear to be any failure of equal protection in allowing abortion generally, or restricting it generally, or prohibiting it generally. Reference: Cornell University Law School K.

DomKen -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 3:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If the law is changed such that a legal person is a fetus at any point after conception then the unborn are legally a class, as they are identifiable, and they get 14th amendment rights just like everyone else. No law had to be passed defining white or black or any other class in order for that class to be protected by teh 14th. More of the same unsupported bullshit. Do you fucking not even know what means to "support" your claims? The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Thus, to repeat myself, it would most certainly be illegal to prohibit, for example, only the abortion of white unborns. But there does not appear to be any failure of equal protection in allowing abortion generally, or restricting it generally, or prohibiting it generally. Reference: Cornell University Law School K. You are simply ignoring the fact that if this law was to be passed then human embryos would be legally fully people and it is simply illegal to kill a human being. To allow abortion under this law would be to deny the aborted fetus the equal protection of the murder laws. If you don't believe me go find a constitutional law professor at a law school and ask him to explain it to you.

Kirata -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 3:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You are simply ignoring the fact that if this law was to be passed then human embryos would be legally fully people and it is simply illegal to kill a human being. It is not "simply illegal to kill a human being," and you are just lucky you don't have to eat all the shit you post. K.

DomKen -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 3:37:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You are simply ignoring the fact that if this law was to be passed then human embryos would be legally fully people and it is simply illegal to kill a human being. It is not "simply illegal to kill a human being," and you are just lucky you don't have to eat all the shit you post. K. Since when isn't it illegal to kill someone?

farglebargle -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 5:28:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Ron Paul has introduced federal anti abortion bills that would make all abortions murder. The bill you referenced finds "a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception" and therefore "recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State." Accordingly, it reserves to the states the right to prohibit, limit, or regulate the performance of abortions and/or the provision of public assistance for the performance of abortions without right of review by the Supreme Court. It does not require that the states do so. It does not make abortion a federal offense. And the word "murder" is nowhere in the bill. Thank you for your time. K. No it does not. What the bill states is quote: human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; All states already have a law against one human ending another human life intentionally so the states would have no choice in the matter. For a state to declare a class of person it was legal to kill would be a clear violation of the 14th amendment. The hypothesis that "life shall be deemed to exist from conception" is an unconstitutional infringement of my religious rights, since MY RELIGION says "Life Begins At Quickening"...

Kirata -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 6:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The hypothesis that "life shall be deemed to exist from conception" is an unconstitutional infringement of my religious rights, since MY RELIGION says "Life Begins At Quickening"... I share your objection to the bill, though for different reasons, and I am very disappointed to find Ron Paul's hand in it. But as a simple matter of fact, there is no point in the reproductive cycle when life "begins." At no time does living tissue resolve into dead lifeless matter which later becomes "alive" again. Life is continuous. The only thing at issue here is the purely practical and secular question of when shall there attach to this continuation of life the legal status of a "person." And the only pertinent question is, what qualities define a "person"? It is a serious question, and one worthy of discussion; not something to be settled by Bible quotations or Tarot cards. K.

juliaoceania -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 7:05:06 PM)
Is an embryo or a fetus a living person? Well, they have the genetic material to be a person, they are living, so I suppose we have to say they are a living person. I have no problem assigning personhood to cells that haven't developed much yet, much less have a heartbeat, etc... the unborn tissue that women carry when they are pregnant are as alive as any other grouping of tissue that consumes energy, grows, and cell divides. That all being said, I do not think one can force another person that is alive too to use their body to incubate another. There are commensalistic, parasitic, and symbiotic relationships between organisms. In nature when a mother gives birth to young that she cannot care for, she will eat them or abandon them. Human beings are animals, even if we have an understanding of how to interrupt the process by which we reproduce. If a pregnancy is considered by the woman to have a negative overall impact on her life, that relationship has become parasitic. I do not think that the government should be able to force women to carry what is a parasite in their life to full term. If the fetus is viable, then I think it is unnecessary to have an abortion, because the fetus has the ability to sustain its own life externally to its parents.

kalikshama -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/19/2011 8:40:23 AM)
FR, Black Abortion: Breaking the Silence The anti-abortionists argue that since blacks make up only 13 percent of the population but are responsible for 37 percent of all abortions, there must be a conspiracy. That is one of many myths within their arguments. First of all, to say abortion is genocide is a misconception. Access to abortion actually saved lives in black communities, where illegal abortion was a leading cause of death before Roe v. Wade. Equating abortion to genocide ignores the real destruction occurring in our communities -- imprisonment, poverty, unemployment and health disparities. Instead, it equates the reproduction of a community to its value. Our communities need to be concerned about the institutional racism, not about taking away women’s rights to self-determination. Institutional racism is the foundation of many problems that impact blacks at disproportionate rates. For example, 35.9 percent of blacks under the age of 18 live in poverty; the infant mortality rate for blacks is 13.63 out of 1,000 live births, compared to the national average of 6.86, and 40 percent of the incarcerated population is black. According to The Sentencing Project, “A black male born in 2001 has a 32 percent chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.”

tazzygirl -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/19/2011 2:17:22 PM)
If what you say is true, then a woman, whose life may be at risk as a result of the pregnancy, must die instead of getting an abortion. How is that type of murder different from the murder of a fetus?

tazzygirl -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/19/2011 2:19:31 PM)
quote: The hypothesis that "life shall be deemed to exist from conception" is an unconstitutional infringement of my religious rights, since MY RELIGION says "Life Begins At Quickening"... Dont get me started on the stupidity of the viability argument.

tazzygirl -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/19/2011 2:25:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama FR, Black Abortion: Breaking the Silence The anti-abortionists argue that since blacks make up only 13 percent of the population but are responsible for 37 percent of all abortions, there must be a conspiracy. That is one of many myths within their arguments. First of all, to say abortion is genocide is a misconception. Access to abortion actually saved lives in black communities, where illegal abortion was a leading cause of death before Roe v. Wade. Equating abortion to genocide ignores the real destruction occurring in our communities -- imprisonment, poverty, unemployment and health disparities. Instead, it equates the reproduction of a community to its value. Our communities need to be concerned about the institutional racism, not about taking away women’s rights to self-determination. Institutional racism is the foundation of many problems that impact blacks at disproportionate rates. For example, 35.9 percent of blacks under the age of 18 live in poverty; the infant mortality rate for blacks is 13.63 out of 1,000 live births, compared to the national average of 6.86, and 40 percent of the incarcerated population is black. According to The Sentencing Project, “A black male born in 2001 has a 32 percent chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.” Statistics are funny little creatures, they can be manipulated to say almost anything someone wants them too. It doesnt matter what percentage of a population blacks are, or whites, or asians. We arent comparing them to the population as a whole. Its strictly those women who have had abortions.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875