• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let us not use the term “ZEF”, who value human life.

Bodhisattva said:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Click to expand...
I assure you I am quite well aware what it says. Quoting it does not answer my question though.

BTW how is the weather, might be in Auckland in a week or so?
 
Bodhisattva said:
"Inalienable" has to be kept in context with those times as well as for flexibility. It was not a universal statement. Blacks were not given the rights either, since they were thought of as less human, to a degree. It relates directly to the time. All people that were considered equal were given inalienable rights at birth. These rights are inalienable. The government cannot ARBITRARILY take them away. One can lose said rights by performing an act deemed so severe that they would lose their aforementioned inalieanable rights.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like they are alienable. :shrug:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Click to expand...

We all know that that means somebody has to be given a trial before being killed by the government. However, doesn't prove that the constitution is theoretically on the side of saying life is an inalienable right in the sense people try to argue. Either way you try to approach the debate, the government is killing and removing one's right to life as a form of punishment. The individual is not killing themselves out of institutionalized shame or self duty, nor is that part of American culture as it has been in Eastern cultures. The government is killing a person, and forcibly ending their life... so either the right to life is not inalienable or the government is oppressing people's natural born rights by killing them
 
mac said:
uh-huh...right.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. The first three words, of which the third is most important. "All persons BORN". Not ZEFs, preborns or conceptus, but persons born. The founders did not extend the right to life beyond birth, inalienable or otherwise.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Yes, that's right. The first three words, of which the third is most important. "All persons BORN". Not ZEFs, preborns or conceptus, but persons born. The founders did not extend the right to life beyond birth, inalienable or otherwise.
Click to expand...

The first thing that is wrong with your argument is that beyond birth means after birth, so.....yer screwed. Second, "all persons born" is part of the phrase "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." This is a Constitutional description of a US Citizen, and that's all that is.
 
mac said:
The first thing that is wrong with your argument is that beyond birth means after birth, so.....yer screwed. Second, "all persons born" is part of the phrase "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." This is a Constitutional description of a US Citizen, and that's all that is.
Click to expand...
how is his arguement "screwed"? he said "All persons BORN" which IS beyond birth or after birth as you say. and the constitutional description of a US Citizen is what is needed for LAWS concerning THAT citizen, and that's all that is.
 
majora$$hole said:
how is his arguement "screwed"? he said "All persons BORN" which IS beyond birth or after birth as you say. and the constitutional description of a US Citizen is what is needed for LAWS concerning THAT citizen, and that's all that is.
Click to expand...

Because they did extend the right to life beyond birth, obviously.
 
mac said:
The first thing that is wrong with your argument is that beyond birth means after birth, so.....yer screwed. Second, "all persons born" is part of the phrase "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." This is a Constitutional description of a US Citizen, and that's all that is.
Click to expand...

The right extends to those born. After being born. Not those who might or are yet to be born. The right does not extend backwards beyond birth. The screw is with you.
 
SheWolf said:
We all know that that means somebody has to be given a trial before being killed by the government. However, doesn't prove that the constitution is theoretically on the side of saying life is an inalienable right in the sense people try to argue. Either way you try to approach the debate, the government is killing and removing one's right to life as a form of punishment. The individual is not killing themselves out of institutionalized shame or self duty, nor is that part of American culture as it has been in Eastern cultures. The government is killing a person, and forcibly ending their life... so either the right to life is not inalienable or the government is oppressing people's natural born rights by killing them
Click to expand...

It just hit me... why are we defending "unalienable rights" from the Declaration of Indpendence with versus from the Constitution? Who cares what the Founding Fathers said in the DOI? That literally has nothing to do with the laws set forth in the US Constitution. The way I see it, the debate is over.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The right extends to those born. After being born. Not those who might or are yet to be born. The right does not extend backwards beyond birth. The screw is with you.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that all laws pertaining to not aborting a ZEF prior to birth are unConstitutional?
 
prometeus said:
I assure you I am quite well aware what it says. Quoting it does not answer my question though.

BTW how is the weather, might be in Auckland in a week or so?
Click to expand...

I am sure you are aware... but it seemed like it answered your question, so I am unclear what you question was apparently.

The weather is pretty good. Might rain up there, but that is a week away so who knows. It is been sunny and great for the most part. It is raining today here and tomorrow but I live 5 hours south of Auckland. If you are going to travel south, PM me and we can set up a meet. Beer here sucks but they have some good imports.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 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. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Click to expand...
So WITH due process of law, a state CAN deprive any person of life....
 
Bodhisattva said:
So you are saying that all laws pertaining to not aborting a ZEF prior to birth are unConstitutional?
Click to expand...

I am pointing out that your quote supporting your argument.... doesn't. Quite the opposite, it undermines it completely.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am sure you are aware... but it seemed like it answered your question, so I am unclear what you question was apparently.
Click to expand...
The issue being the right to life, I was asking mac that a right to life did exist why wasn't it mentioned in the Constitution? Further more, if in fact the right to life was inalienable, how is it possible for due process to abrogate it? Due process in not some magical process, in its simplest form it is a human decision which seems to have super power to overcome "inalienable."

The weather is pretty good. Might rain up there, but that is a week away so who knows. It is been sunny and great for the most part. It is raining today here and tomorrow but I live 5 hours south of Auckland.
Click to expand...
I hate bad weather, who doesn't and since the trip will be a short meeting after a very long flight followed by a very long flight back, a nice sunny day would add some cheer.

If you are going to travel south, PM me and we can set up a meet.
Click to expand...
That is very gracious of you and I genuinely would love it, but I am afraid that this time I am limited to this 'hit and run' schedule.

Beer here sucks but they have some good imports.
Click to expand...
Had a lot worse and there is always a nice glass of vine, besides even with the worst drink a good time can be had among good people.
 
Manc Skipper said:
I am pointing out that your quote supporting your argument.... doesn't. Quite the opposite, it undermines it completely.
Click to expand...

I am not making an argument. I am trying to understand yours...

If, "The right does not extend backwards beyond birth" then it sounds like you are saying that the ZEF has no rights? Correct?

Yet the ZEF does have legal rights... so are those rights Constitutional or not?
 
prometeus said:
The issue being the right to life, I was asking mac that a right to life did exist why wasn't it mentioned in the Constitution? Further more, if in fact the right to life was inalienable, how is it possible for due process to abrogate it? Due process in not some magical process, in its simplest form it is a human decision which seems to have super power to overcome "inalienable."
Click to expand...

OK... fair enough, but is "inalienable" in the Constitution? It is in the DOI...

I hate bad weather, who doesn't and since the trip will be a short meeting after a very long flight followed by a very long flight back, a nice sunny day would add some cheer.
Click to expand...

I bet you will get good weather... it is basically summer here.

That is very gracious of you and I genuinely would love it, but I am afraid that this time I am limited to this 'hit and run' schedule.
Click to expand...

What are you going to see?

Had a lot worse and there is always a nice glass of vine, besides even with the worst drink a good time can be had among good people.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree... I'll have a beer on your behalf then! :)
 
Manc Skipper said:
The right extends to those born. After being born. Not those who might or are yet to be born. The right does not extend backwards beyond birth. The screw is with you.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that. Like I told you erlier, the part you are stuck on is a definition of US citizen.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It just hit me... why are we defending "unalienable rights" from the Declaration of Indpendence with versus from the Constitution? Who cares what the Founding Fathers said in the DOI? That literally has nothing to do with the laws set forth in the US Constitution. The way I see it, the debate is over.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of Constitutional interpretation is done under "Intent of the Founders". The DOI is an official document that well details such intent.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It just hit me... why are we defending "unalienable rights" from the Declaration of Indpendence with versus from the Constitution? Who cares what the Founding Fathers said in the DOI? That literally has nothing to do with the laws set forth in the US Constitution. The way I see it, the debate is over.
Click to expand...

Nope. 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom