Ad hoc rights are the most questionable

[mac]

My assumption? What a load of ****. Are you this desperate? The clear opposite of what you lied is quoted and referenced for you and you still lie. This is a new standard for low. Can you see any light out of that pit?

Good grief, Prom, a differing opinion is not a lie. Grow up a little.

 

[prometeus]

Good grief, Prom, a differing opinion is not a lie. Grow up a little.

Of course we differ in opinion by far most of the time, but this was not a matter of opinion. A clear statement like ""You are right that the census in and by itself is not the source of rights." to be interpreted to be the exact opposing opinion take a VERY LONG stretching. It is offensive not just disagreeable. I am saddened by such manifestations of people who otherwise appear moderates. We are not here to agree, but this is really not necessary.

 

[mac]

Of course we differ in opinion by far most of the time, but this was not a matter of opinion. A clear statement like ""You are right that the census in and by itself is not the source of rights." to be interpreted to be the exact opposing opinion take a VERY LONG stretching. It is offensive not just disagreeable. I am saddened by such manifestations of people who otherwise appear moderates. We are not here to agree, but this is really not necessary.

I didn't interpret anything, Prom. The census is not a source, judge or indicator of rights in any way. Human, reptilian, Martian, or any other. The census is a simple function of government, it is not a court, it is not a philosophical establishment, it is not a lobby. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of fetal rights. Clinging tenaciously to a failed argument is what is saddening. Move on.

 

[freedomlover]

Well, first, I don't see any real similarity in the two issues. Second, conscription (the draft) is still possible in the US, it just isn't used. Several Democrats have tried to get the draft reinstated though.

You don’t have to see any similarity if you don’t want to.

The issue is whether or not ‘forced pregnancy’ is language that over-dramatizes the duty imposed on the pregnant woman by anti-abortion legislation. Let me restate the issue by asking: Are American citizens in a duty to be good Samaritans?

 

[mac]

You don’t have to see any similarity if you don’t want to.

The issue is whether or not ‘forced pregnancy’ is language that over-dramatizes the duty imposed on the pregnant woman by anti-abortion legislation. Let me restate the issue by asking: Are American citizens in a duty to be good Samaritans?

If you're asking me do Americans have to be "good" my answer is no, but I'll add that Americans don't have to put up with them either.

 

[freedomlover]

If you're asking me do Americans have to be "good" my answer is no, but I'll add that Americans don't have to put up with them either.

Someone’s right to life, even if assumed, does not warrant someone else’s servitude.

 

[SheWolf]

The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress. The appropriate number of representatives is based on the number of voters each state has, since a voter is over the age of 18, counting unborn children is unnecessary.

I don't agree that the argument is worth discussing either, bu people under 18 are included on the census though.. It's not for the sole purpose of voting, it also helps the government decide how much funding is necessary

 

[mac]

Someone’s right to life, even if assumed, does not warrant someone else’s servitude.

I don't really buy the whole servitude bit. You can deny the issue of personal responsibility entirely if you like, but a person is responsible for the outcome of their actions.

 

[OKgrannie]

I don't really buy the whole servitude bit. You can deny the issue of personal responsibility entirely if you like, but a person is responsible for the outcome of their actions.

Making a decision for abortion is being responsible. You don't get to decide HOW people deal with problems, only that they DO deal.

 

[digsbe]

Making a decision for abortion is being responsible. You don't get to decide HOW people deal with problems, only that they DO deal.

Making a decision for abortion is killing an innocent life typically because some woman doesn't want to have a child. So we can't decide how people deal with problems? Does this mean we should decide in regards to the struggling marriage where the wife kills her husband for insurance money and a stress free end to their marriage? So you think it's ok for people to bomb abortion clinics too? Because they are deciding how they want to deal with problems.

 

[OKgrannie]

Making a decision for abortion is killing an innocent life typically because some woman doesn't want to have a child. So we can't decide how people deal with problems? Does this mean we should decide in regards to the struggling marriage where the wife kills her husband for insurance money and a stress free end to their marriage? So you think it's ok for people to bomb abortion clinics too? Because they are deciding how they want to deal with problems.

Abortion is a private matter. It doesn't affect society at all, as members of society don't know about others' private matters. Murder affects the whole of society, it disrupts order in society. Members of society MUST pass some rules for living to maintain order in the society, but on the same note, society must agree to allow members the privacy to make decisions regarding their own lives.

 

[freedomlover]

I don't really buy the whole servitude bit. You can deny the issue of personal responsibility entirely if you like, but a person is responsible for the outcome of their actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court defines involuntary servitude as “the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property and services” (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896)). Again, “a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another” (Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 16 (1906), and also “that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude” (Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 241 (1911). The doctrine has been endorsed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, even more clearly: “The essence of slavery or involuntary servitude is that the worker must labor against his will for the benefit of another” (Wicks v. Southern Pac. Co., 231 F.2d 130.138 (9th Cir.) (1956).

If the U.S. Constitution could ever be construed as implying the fetus to be a person, anti-abortion laws would end up in a person—the pregnant woman—being compelled to perform services to another—the fetus—against her will. That’s involuntary servitude.

Every American citizen is protected against involuntary servitude by the Thirteenth Amendment. Now, your theory is that the woman does alienate such protection by performing sexual intercourse. No, she does not. Constitutional rights are unalienable.

 

[mac]

The U.S. Supreme Court defines involuntary servitude as “the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property and services” (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896)). Again, “a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another” (Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 16 (1906), and also “that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude” (Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 241 (1911). The doctrine has been endorsed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, even more clearly: “The essence of slavery or involuntary servitude is that the worker must labor against his will for the benefit of another” (Wicks v. Southern Pac. Co., 231 F.2d 130.138 (9th Cir.) (1956).

If the U.S. Constitution could ever be construed as implying the fetus to be a person, anti-abortion laws would end up in a person—the pregnant woman—being compelled to perform services to another—the fetus—against her will. That’s involuntary servitude.

Every American citizen is protected against involuntary servitude by the Thirteenth Amendment. Now, your theory is that the woman does alienate such protection by performing sexual intercourse. No, she does not. Constitutional rights are unalienable.

Free, I understand what it is, but I don't think it applies to pregnancy. Wanted or unwanted.

It is entirely, and Constitutionally, legal to enter into formal or informal contracts that limit or restrict ones own rights if they do so willingly and with full knowledge. Ask anyone in the military about that. I think that concept is closer to applying to pregnancy than is involuntary servitude.

 

[freedomlover]

Free, I understand what it is, but I don't think it applies to pregnancy. Wanted or unwanted.

The Thirteenth Amendment is a very short text. It simply says:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

While slavery is in plain English defined quite precisely as a situation in which human beings are bought and sold as goods whatsoever, involuntary servitude is defined by the US Supreme Court rather broadly, in a non-exhaustive way:

… the word servitude is of larger meaning than slavery, as the latter is popularly understood in this country… the purpose of the article might have been evaded, if only the word slavery had been used.

It seems quite clear that the word servitude was included to encompass new situations in which human beings could be compelled to perform services against their will. Unwilling pregnant women roundly square in the notion.

It is entirely, and Constitutionally, legal to enter into formal or informal contracts that limit or restrict ones own rights if they do so willingly and with full knowledge. Ask anyone in the military about that. I think that concept is closer to applying to pregnancy than is involuntary servitude.

I’m afraid you here stretch the notion of contract only too far, by purporting sexual intercourse to be a kind of contract to yield to motherhood in the event of conception. Yet, even though it were true that it is a kind of contract, then the so-called pro-life party is wholly incongruent in claiming that a mere breach of contract must be conducive to a criminal prosecution.

 

[mac]

The Thirteenth Amendment is a very short text. It simply says:



While slavery is in plain English defined quite precisely as a situation in which human beings are bought and sold as goods whatsoever, involuntary servitude is defined by the US Supreme Court rather broadly, in a non-exhaustive way:



It seems quite clear that the word servitude was included to encompass new situations in which human beings could be compelled to perform services against their will. Unwilling pregnant women roundly square in the notion.




I’m afraid you here stretch the notion of contract only too far, by purporting sexual intercourse to be a kind of contract to yield to motherhood in the event of conception. Yet, even though it were true that it is a kind of contract, then the so-called pro-life party is wholly incongruent in claiming that a mere breach of contract must be conducive to a criminal prosecution.

I agree, the contract thing is a stretch, but no more than equating pregnancy to servitude. Primarily because no one other than "the servant" instigated the "servitude". IF ever deemed a person with rights equivalent to the born child, the unborn child can not be held responsible for inducing servitude on the mother when it is clearly not the unborn child's choice, desire, or fault that he/she exists and found his or herself so imprisoned in this uncaring woman's womb. It also is not government induced servitude to disallow murdering said child for this uncaring woman's sole benefit and convenience.

Sorry for the theatrics, the servitude approach smacks of emotional argument to me.

 

[SheWolf]

I don't really buy the whole servitude bit. You can deny the issue of personal responsibility entirely if you like, but a person is responsible for the outcome of their actions.

Virtually all sexually active people in the world are irresponsible, remember? Can't expect us to grow up over and suddenly responsible enough to care for another human being, can you?

 

[SheWolf]

Making a decision for abortion is killing an innocent life typically because some woman doesn't want to have a child. So we can't decide how people deal with problems? Does this mean we should decide in regards to the struggling marriage where the wife kills her husband for insurance money and a stress free end to their marriage? So you think it's ok for people to bomb abortion clinics too? Because they are deciding how they want to deal with problems.

I doubt this will really impact your understanding of reality, but abortion is not about, not wanting a baby.... and by baby I assume you mean a newborn/neonate type of "baby."

 

[mac]

Virtually all sexually active people in the world are irresponsible, remember? Can't expect us to grow up over and suddenly responsible enough to care for another human being, can you?

Cute, but....if you figure out the number of people having sex every day vs the number of abortions AND births every day, you'll find that either there are a lot of very lucky people, or a lot of very responsible people....or both.

 

[mac]

I doubt this will really impact your understanding of reality, but abortion is not about, not wanting a baby.... and by baby I assume you mean a newborn/neonate type of "baby."

Abortion is about wanting a baby?

 

[SheWolf]

Cute, but....if you figure out the number of people having sex every day vs the number of abortions AND births every day, you'll find that either there are a lot of very lucky people, or a lot of very responsible people....or both.

tsk tsk.. You said men and women were equally (ir)responsible for choosing to have sex.

You also admittedly said nearly all sexually active couples are irresponsible according to your rules... rules that were based on the practice of contraception

But now you aren't talking like that.. seems to me somebody isn't honest with themselves

 

[SheWolf]

Abortion is about wanting a baby?

Depending on the person and situation.. abortion may or may not be about wanting a baby

 

[mac]

Depending on the person and situation.. abortion may or may not be about wanting a baby

I may or may not have said knowledge of the whereabouts of indicated persons or places without consent of disclosing said position without explicit permission of the aforementioned......

 

[freedomlover]

I agree, the contract thing is a stretch, but no more than equating pregnancy to servitude. Primarily because no one other than "the servant" instigated the "servitude". IF ever deemed a person with rights equivalent to the born child, the unborn child can not be held responsible for inducing servitude on the mother when it is clearly not the unborn child's choice, desire, or fault that he/she exists and found his or herself so imprisoned in this uncaring woman's womb. It also is not government induced servitude to disallow murdering said child for this uncaring woman's sole benefit and convenience.

Sorry for the theatrics, the servitude approach smacks of emotional argument to me.

Not always is pregnancy servitude. In surrogate motherhood, it is clear that the woman has freely accepted, for a price, pregnancy. That’s a contract proper. In case on desired pregnancy, the woman accepts, not for a price, to perform the same labor. It might be called “voluntary servitude.” In case of undesired pregnancy, which is short of being either hired labor or a voluntary servitude, the legal condition under anti-abortion laws may not be called otherwise than “involuntary servitude.” Against that situation the woman is protected by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

[mac]

Not always is pregnancy servitude. In surrogate motherhood, it is clear that the woman has freely accepted, for a price, pregnancy. That’s a contract proper. In case on desired pregnancy, the woman accepts, not for a price, to perform the same labor. It might be called “voluntary servitude.” In case of undesired pregnancy, which is short of being either hired labor or a voluntary servitude, the legal condition under anti-abortion laws may not be called otherwise than “involuntary servitude.” Against that situation the woman is protected by the Thirteenth Amendment.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see pregnancy as servitude, forced or otherwise. I don't not because I don't want to but because I don't believe it fits the description.

 

[freedomlover]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see pregnancy as servitude, forced or otherwise. I don't not because I don't want to but because I don't believe it fits the description.

Don't you think pregnancy is labor?