Just maybe the beginnig of the end?

[Engimo]

Yeah, she does not matter.You lefties got what you wanted out of her.....

What in the world are you talking about? We're debating the legal issues of abortion, not the personal story of the person involved with Roe vs. Wade. Her backstory is entirely irrelevant to the precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision on the case.

 

[Navy Pride]

What in the world are you talking about? We're debating the legal issues of abortion, not the personal story of the person involved with Roe vs. Wade. Her backstory is entirely irrelevant to the precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision on the case.

Wrong, you got no Roe, you got no Roe V Wade.........

 

[Engimo]

Wrong, you got no Roe, you got no Roe V Wade.........

Obviously not, but the fact of the matter is that the case did happen. What she did after the trial is of no consequence to the decision of the court and the legal precedent set up by the decision.

 

[blastula]

Right to life. What happened to his right to life? Regardless of whether you approve of the analogy, does he not have this right? If not, why not?

It's not the question of approve or not approve. It's a question of logical or illogical.

The kidney patient certainly has a right to life like everybody else including you and me. But, he is dying of kidney disease and not by the hands of somebody else such as his mother. That's the difference. And simple to understand.

 

[steen]

The analogy between kidney patient and pregnancy is illogical.

not at all. In both cases, the question is whether the "recipient" has a "right to life, allowing the forced taking of bodily resources from the donor.

For the sake of argument, if the kidney patient dies because he doesn't get my kidney, your argument failed because nobody causes him to have a kidney disease.

That is irrelevant. Does the existence as 'alive" give him a right to life?

"Cause" is utterly irrelevant to that question. Certainly, his life is the same regardless of how he got the need for your kidney.

Or are you now saying that it is not a "right to life" but rather a "fault" issue"?

Are you saying that you are a "pro-faulter" rather than a pro-lifer?

However, in pregnancy the unborn is conceived when the woman had sex with a man.[/quote]And does that make the unborn MORE "life" than the kidney patient? Does it give the unborn MORE "right to life" than the kidney patient? You are arguing that the unborn can use the woman's bodily resources against her will because the unborn has a "right to life." If the kidney patient has a "right to life" that similarly allows the use of bodily resources against the donor's will, then he most certainly has the right to use your kidney.

Also, you are talking about removing an organ from one human to another. In pregnancy, there is no organ removal from the woman.

But there is very heavy use of the woman's body and organs with serious health risks for the woman. Her bodily resources are being used. Giving the extra and unneeded kidney through live donation is safer than giving birth and is done with much faster than 9 months.

There are plenty of other difference, but you should get the point about your illogical attempt.

So far, your arguments have not been convincing. You have made a bunch of just because I say so" claims that I have shown merit-less.

When abortion is concerned, it means one thing: the death of the unborn human being.

When refused kidney donation is concerned, it means one thing: the death of the human kidney patient.

When you proclaim women's right to abortion you are conversely denouncing the right of the unborn to live.

When you proclaim your right to withhold your kidney, you are conversely denouncing the right of the kidney patient to live.

Since abortion is legal in this country, women who want to abort have that right to do so. Hence, right to life of the unborn is the primary subject.

False. The right of the woman to control her own bodily resources, her right to life is the primary subject. The status of the unborn is utterly irrelevant.

The right to control her bodily resources should never include taking another innocent human life.

The right to control your bodily resources should never include the loss of another innocent human life.

Nobody is trying to make women to be second-class citizens.

When you are trying to take away her right to privacy, the right to control her own bodily resources, then you are trying to deny her a right that you personally enjoy; you are trying to take rights from her that everybody else enjoy. You most certainly are misogynistically making her a second-class citizen with less right than what you claim for yourself. Until you agree that YOU can be forced to give your kidney against your will, you are a hypocrite.

Anti-choicers are always big on forcing duties on others that they themselves won't accept. That's hate mongering, hypocritical and misogynistic theocracy at its worst.

I agree that slavery and aborted pregnancy have some parallel.

it doesn't. But prolife attempts at dominate and control the woman's body, THAT is directly parallel to slavery.

 

[steen]

It's not the question of approve or not approve. It's a question of logical or illogical.

The kidney patient certainly has a right to life like everybody else including you and me. But, he is dying of kidney disease and not by the hands of somebody else such as his mother. That's the difference. And simple to understand.

Irrelevant. The way you die have no bearing on whether you have a right to life or not. Either the right is there or it isn't.

If the right is there in the way the pro-lifers claim, then that right must include allowing the forced use of another person's bodily resources.

Does that right exist or not?

 

[tryreading]

I find this counter so weak (that's not personal to you, tryreading...it's a common counter...).

Right to life means a natural right to exist without intentional interruption. It by no means asserts you MUST live at all costs or that you MUST be "provided for" if you are in need of something. It is simply the fact that ALL other so-called "rights" are dependent upon you as a being--living. You must have life for anything else to be relevant.


Here's something for ya...
If I was his siamese twin--and he was going to die without the use of my kidney--he would have a right to use my extra one. To deny him his life because that kidney is mine and I don't want him using it anymore would be wrong. I would be intentionally ending his life by not sustaining his life that I NATURALLY am responsible for by virtue of the circumstances of my own life.

You can pick and choose where you are right to life, and where you are not. That is your choice. But if the patient in question does not get what he needs from another person, he will die. A human being will die because of the choice of another, or others. A matching donor can choose to donate and he will live, or they can choose not to and he will die. Black and white. You are right to life regarding abortion, but the other life can go to hell.

What happened to 'erring on the side of life?' I guess it applies here, but not there.

The kidney patient can live if there is an 'intentional interruption', can't he? But he's already been born, and not worthy of the opportunity for further life if he requires resources from a living human body.

 

[Alex]

Alex, calling me "narrow mind" is unnecessary. Please be civil in the debate.

That is some seriously low self-esteem there. I did not call you anything.

Even though I agree with Navy Pride that there is nothing in the constitution that mentioned about "privacy", but for the sake of argument I did give you the benefit of doubt in my previous post that, granted, even if there is a privacy clause, the 4th amendment did not grant absolute right to privacy in term of the constitutional right to be secure.

If you commit an offence, the govt is empowered by the constitution with probable cause and upon a warrant issued, to search your person and seize your property. At the time of R v W, abortion was against the law in Texas except during medical emergency situation. At that time Roe was pregnant but did not have abortion. She was not charged with anything and no search or seizure was done unto her. So to plead the 4th is a moot point. The majority opinion in RvW had wrongfully and forcefully squeezed a privacy clause out of the 4th to justify their ruling

I have already addressed this. Privacy is implied in our 4th Amendment. Do you really believe that you know more about our Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge? Get real.

Nothing in the 14th suggests anything about privacy either. Again, the 14th is not absolute as denoted by the phrase "without due process of law" and "equal protection". That means if you commit a crime the govt cannot deprave you of your life, liberty, or property without due process and equal protection. Once due process and equal protection are given and satisfied, yo batcha..the govt can definitely take your life, liberty, or property depending on the type of crimes you committed. Therefore, before RvW the state govt should have that constitutional right to punish any person that committed a crime, including abortion, after probable cause for warrant, due process, and equal protection are satisfied. But the SCOTUS made the wrong decision, and the ruling actually was unconstitutional.

Don't you want the govt to make decisions in terms of legislating laws against crimes? Don't you want you and your family to be protected by laws against such things as burglary, robbery, assualt, rape, and murder? Do you think the govt is far too much powerful and is imposing our childishness to legislates laws against criminals?

I cannot believe that I just read this. What does "burglary, robbery, assualt, rape, and murder" have anything to do with abortion?

I sincerely and truly believe that the unborn is a human being just as I believe you are a human being without requiring proof of your exixtence or personhood.

I also believe there is a higher law that supercede man's law. No offence intended, you may see abortion as terminating a pregnacy but I truly believe the act of abortion is murder based on higher law. Therefore, it is wrong to think about human life in terms of taxes.

I pay enough in taxes. Let your money pay for the unwanted children. I did not have them, they are not my responsibilty. We could raise the taxes of the anti-abortion people.

There will always be cause in this world for caring of people in needs for the perfection of humanity. Therefore, to murder those who are weak and vulnerable is never justified whatsoever.

Between the two evils, one must not serve two masters.

Therefore, in order to serve good, one must choose the course that protect the weak and defendless from deadly harm. The other choice is up to them who have mind to think and ears to listen to seek for the right answer. Isn't that what pro-choice is supposed to be?

Are we not our brother's keeper? Since to me abortion is an act of murder, am I not to care about what have befallen unto my helpless fellow human beings?

No, I am not my brother's keeper. My "brothers" can think and choose for themselves without interference from a busy-body. That is all anti-abortion boils down to. They have no business of their own so they get into other people business. They believe that their ideals are the only right ones so all people must abide by them. This is narrow-minded and imposing. They run to the government to pass laws to get their way. This is childish and requires a government that babysits. Our government has much more pressing issues than the ones that are private to the individual.

 

[blastula]

Alex, you claimed privacy is implied in our 4th Amendment. OK I already gave you that assumption in my previous post even though I disagree.

You asked,."Do you really believe that you know more about our Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge?" And I ask: do you think a Supreme Court Judge is infallible? [Hint: Roberts v. City of Boston (1849) and Dred Scott Case for starter]. And this is real.

Now, if you believe in sapience then you should read the constitution for yourself instead of relying blindly on others' interpretation. If you can read and understand English, there's no reason that you cannot examine the constitution for yourself unless you lack normal intelligence. If in that case, should you be aborted?

OK, now let's examine the 4th and 14th for ourselves:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let's examine the 4th sentence by sentence:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated'--- was Roe secure in her person? Of course she was. She was not charged or prosecuted for anything. Was her right violated? Of course not, the govt wasn't after her.

"and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ------was she searched or her things seized? Heck, no!

So Roe's claim of her 4th amendment right was violated was a scam.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"---- She was US Citizen, no issue here.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."---Her life, liberty, and property were not deprived by anybody let alone the govt. If she commits a crime, yeah...of course... then the govt has the power vested by the constitution to deprive her her life if she commited a heinous murder. If not she will be deprived of liberty by going to jail if she commited an armed robbery. If she commits a lesser crime such as speeding violation she may be asked to pay up some property in the form of money.

Of course, the govt has to follow certain procedure, such as abiding by the due process law; and not to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If the govt has done all that, then the govt is within the constitution to take any your rights, not just privacy, to protect the people safe from criminals.

And at that time abortion as well as murder and armed robbery was against the law in Texas where Roe was a resident. Therefore, just because she cannot get an abortion, or commit a murder, or rob a bank that she can claim her right to privacy is violated.

A brother's keeper means we as human beings are responsible for our fellow human beings especially those who are weak and defenceless. If you don't think you are your brother's keeper, then just remember if some evil person try to take anyway your life away from you and nobody in the bystanding crowd step forth to help you, don't blame it on the crowd who share your same philosophy. I pray it never happen to you or your family, but it sure did happen to a young lady at a busy traffic bridge in Michigan.

 

[blastula]

Irrelevant. The way you die have no bearing on whether you have a right to life or not. Either the right is there or it isn't.

If the right is there in the way the pro-lifers claim, then that right must include allowing the forced use of another person's bodily resources.

Does that right exist or not?

There is absolutely no comparision between pregnancy and kidney patient, steen.

If the unborn is not caused into existence into this world by human sexual event leading to his/her conception, but rather by his/her own volition apart from a mother host and with no genetic link whatsoever, then there may be something. Also, in order for the analogy to be equivalent the self-caused unborn should have a medical problem that necessitate him/her to need a body part or an organ from a host to sustain his/her life. Since these two conditions are not there, your attempt to compare pregnancy with kidney transplantpatient is not only illogical but laughable.

Conversely, unless kidney patient was caused into existence and with the condition of kidney failure by another human being via genetic link or other procreation process, there is no comparison. To force an anology between kidney patient and pregnancy is just absurd.

To proclaim that "If the right is there in the way the pro-lifers claim, then that right must include allowing the forced use of another person's bodily resources" is utterly absurd.

Here's how it is adsurd: Apart from rape, women make the decision on whether to have sex with men or not knowing the risk that she may get pregnant and not the men when having sex. Nobody force a gun on her against her will to have sex. If pregnancy occurs, it is her own decision and therefore her own doing. Since pregnancy results in the creation of a human beingyou cannot simply dispose of the newly created human life just because it was a mistake or inconvenience.

In legal contract, if you sign a contract without reading the content carefully, you cannot later claimed, "Oops! I made a mistake. I forgot to read the part that say I may get an inherent risk of burden that may come with the act of performaning the contract". If you're dead set on dishonoring the terms of agreement by unilaterally breaking the contract, you will be held by the court to honor the contract by fulfilling the terms of agreement. This is to force you to take responsibility just as society is saying to you that you have to take personal responsibility instead of trying to terminate the life of the unborn.

If control of women's bodily resources is a paramount concern, then those women should think first before repeatedly getting themselves into such dire situation in the tune of more than 40 million innocent human lives sacrificed.

Does that right exist or not?

NO!

 

[Alex]

Alex, you claimed privacy is implied in our 4th Amendment. OK I already gave you that assumption in my previous post even though I disagree.

You asked,."Do you really believe that you know more about our Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge?" And I ask: do you think a Supreme Court Judge is infallible? [Hint: Roberts v. City of Boston (1849) and Dred Scott Case for starter]. And this is real.

Now, if you believe in sapience then you should read the constitution for yourself instead of relying blindly on others' interpretation. If you can read and understand English, there's no reason that you cannot examine the constitution for yourself unless you lack normal intelligence. If in that case, should you be aborted?

Ameteur debating. Read any of my posts on The Constitution. I am very well educated on it.

OK, now let's examine the 4th and 14th for ourselves:

Let's examine the 4th sentence by sentence:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated'--- was Roe secure in her person? Of course she was. She was not charged or prosecuted for anything. Was her right violated? Of course not, the govt wasn't after her.

"and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ------was she searched or her things seized? Heck, no!

So Roe's claim of her 4th amendment right was violated was a scam.



"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"---- She was US Citizen, no issue here.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."---Her life, liberty, and property were not deprived by anybody let alone the govt. If she commits a crime, yeah...of course... then the govt has the power vested by the constitution to deprive her her life if she commited a heinous murder. If not she will be deprived of liberty by going to jail if she commited an armed robbery. If she commits a lesser crime such as speeding violation she may be asked to pay up some property in the form of money.

Of course, the govt has to follow certain procedure, such as abiding by the due process law; and not to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If the govt has done all that, then the govt is within the constitution to take any your rights, not just privacy, to protect the people safe from criminals.

And at that time abortion as well as murder and armed robbery was against the law in Texas where Roe was a resident. Therefore, just because she cannot get an abortion, or commit a murder, or rob a bank that she can claim her right to privacy is violated.

I have already addressed these issues and will not be a part of circular debating.

A brother's keeper means we as human beings are responsible for our fellow human beings especially those who are weak and defenceless. If you don't think you are your brother's keeper, then just remember if some evil person try to take anyway your life away from you and nobody in the bystanding crowd step forth to help you, don't blame it on the crowd who share your same philosophy. I pray it never happen to you or your family, but it sure did happen to a young lady at a busy traffic bridge in Michigan.

Pray all you want, no one can answer them.

 

[blastula]

I'm sure you are very well educated, Alex.

 

[Navy Pride]

Obviously not, but the fact of the matter is that the case did happen. What she did after the trial is of no consequence to the decision of the court and the legal precedent set up by the decision.

You are a true person of no compassion.....

 

[jallman]

You are a true person of no compassion.....

I would hardly call having a grasp on relevance a sign of lacking compassion. It really was of no consequence of the court what she did after the case was decided.

 

[Navy Pride]

I would hardly call having a grasp on relevance a sign of lacking compassion. It really was of no consequence of the court what she did after the case was decided.

That is your opinion and I respect it but I will have to disagree...She has said she was coerced into filing that suit by over zealous feminists...........You just can't use someone like that and throw them in the trash can after they have given you what you want......

 

[steen]

There is absolutely no comparision between pregnancy and kidney patient, steen.

I didn't say there was, so obviously you aren't reading veru well. There is a similarity between the pregnancy and the one who GIVES the kidney, like there is a similarity between the kidney pateint and the embryo/fetus. if you can't even get THAT right, you obviously have not grasped anything I said despite my explicit detailing, and I must thus question how honestly you are actually trying to understand what I am saying.

It is strongly indicative of the usual inherent and strong dishonesty of pro-life claims and postulations. How sad.

If the unborn is not caused into existence into this world by human sexual event leading to his/her conception, but rather by his/her own volition apart from a mother host and with no genetic link whatsoever, then there may be something.

So it if not the life itself that matters, and thus not a "right to life."

Rather, you are arguing about the cause of life and the fault of needing resources.

Obviously, you aren't then arguing a "right to life," and your dishonesty in claiming so is now exposed.


Or could it be that you just weren't paying attention at all and thus made yourself look ignorant?

Also, in order for the analogy to be equivalent the self-caused unborn

Why does cause matter? If there is a "right to LIFE," then what does the cause or risk to that life matter? If anything affects the right, then obviously it is not asn inherent "right to life" to begin with.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Engimo]

That is your opinion and I respect it but I will have to disagree...She has said she was coerced into filing that suit by over zealous feminists...........You just can't use someone like that and throw them in the trash can after they have given you what you want......

I agree with you entirely. If that is what happened, then they were truly in the wrong, and something horrible was done.

That said, it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of abortion, which is all that I was saying.

 

[blastula]

I didn't say there was, so obviously you aren't reading veru well. There is a similarity between the pregnancy and the one who GIVES the kidney, like there is a similarity between the kidney pateint and the embryo/fetus. if you can't even get THAT right, you obviously have not grasped anything I said despite my explicit detailing, and I must thus question how honestly you are actually trying to understand what I am saying.

It is strongly indicative of the usual inherent and strong dishonesty of pro-life claims and postulations. How sad.

So it if not the life itself that matters, and thus not a "right to life."

Rather, you are arguing about the cause of life and the fault of needing resources.

Obviously, you aren't then arguing a "right to life," and your dishonesty in claiming so is now exposed.


Or could it be that you just weren't paying attention at all and thus made yourself look ignorant?

Why does cause matter? If there is a "right to LIFE," then what does the cause or risk to that life matter? If anything affects the right, then obviously it is not asn inherent "right to life" to begin with.

Thanks for proving my point.

steen, comparison means to compare similarities or differences between two things being compared. If you stated that "There is a similarity between the pregnancy and the one who GIVES the kidney", you are comparing the similarity. Therefore, you are making a comparison.

Cause matter here because you are trying to make the killing of an unborn to be similar to the natural outcome of a kidney diseased patient. Your thinking is weird. It is truly hard to reason with the unreasonable.