• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proof of the Founding Fathers intent:

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
While the Declaration of Independence has no legal authority because it is not mentioned in the constitution, I believe that it bears precedence in that it clearly shows the Founding Father's intent for the future of this great nation, most importantly that ALL men be granted the right's of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
 

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "While the Declaration of Independence has no legal authority because it is not mentioned in the constitution, I believe that it bears precedence in that it clearly shows the Founding Father's intent for the future of this great nation, most importantly that ALL men be granted the right's of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

--and quoted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


If you are somehow trying to link that to the abortion issue, you have FAILED. Without even bringing up the lack of mention of women and slaves, there is the simple fact that "men" are distinguished from male children by puberty. Taken literally, therefore, that quotation is only talking about adult males. Fetuses are excluded! (As if they have any ability to abolish a repressive government, anyway; why grant a right like that to something that has no ability to use it?)

And then there is the FACT that when the 1790 Census took place, many of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration were still around. IF THEY HAD EVER INDICATED THAT FETUSES SHOULD BE COUNTED AS PERSONS, SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
I doubt you will find any such evidence. Do remember that that generation DID give us the adage, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." Why shouldn't the same be true of unborn humans, when a significant number of pregnancies ended (in that era) in miscarriage or still-birth or even death within just a few days after birth?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "While the Declaration of Independence has no legal authority because it is not mentioned in the constitution, I believe that it bears precedence in that it clearly shows the Founding Father's intent for the future of this great nation, most importantly that ALL men be granted the right's of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

--and quoted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


If you are somehow trying to link that to the abortion issue, you have FAILED. Without even bringing up the lack of mention of women and slaves, there is the simple fact that "men" are distinguished from male children by puberty. Taken literally, therefore, that quotation is only talking about adult males. Fetuses are excluded! (As if they have any ability to abolish a repressive government, anyway; why grant a right like that to something that has no ability to use it?)

And then there is the FACT that when the 1790 Census took place, many of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration were still around. IF THEY HAD EVER INDICATED THAT FETUSES SHOULD BE COUNTED AS PERSONS, SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
I doubt you will find any such evidence. Do remember that that generation DID give us the adage, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." Why shouldn't the same be true of unborn humans, when a significant number of pregnancies ended (in that era) in miscarriage or still-birth or even death within just a few days after birth?
The evidence is as clear as day human life is created at conception and whether you believe the creator to be some higher being or simply the man and woman who engage in sexual procreation, with the act of conception man and woman become the creators and with that act of creation the creator endows the created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This is what we in law like to call a precedent a proof that the interpretation by Supreme Court in RVW is simply wrong. And the RVW decision didn't occur until well after the deaths of the F.F.'s and at the time when they were alive abortion was illegal so how would they comment on a Supreme Court decision that wouldn't occur for another 200 years are they psychic?
 
Last edited:

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Question: who died and made the founding fathers God?

Why is the "intent" of a bunch of men who lived over two centuries ago so sacred?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
If I agree about the importance of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, but I disagree with your interpretation of their intent, do I have to go to Red China too?
The evidence of their intent is clear as day and is not subject for reinterpretation:

The evidence is as clear as day human life is created at conception and whether you believe the creator to be some higher being or simply the man and woman who engage in sexual procreation, with the act of conception man and woman become the creators and with that act of creation the creator endows the created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This is what we in law like to call a precedent a proof that the interpretation by the Supreme Court in RVW is simply wrong.

cre·a·tor

cre·a·tor [kree áytər]
(plural cre·a·tors)
n
somebody who creates: somebody who brings something into existence

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.



in·al·ien·a·ble

in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb’l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, for example, because of being protected by law (formal)

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

prec·e·dent

prec·e·dent [préssəd’nt]
n (plural prec·e·dents)
1. example for later action or decision: an action or decision that can be subsequently used as an example for a similar decision or to justify a similar action
2. established practice: an established custom or practice
3. law requirement to follow earlier court decisions: the doctrine that requires a court to follow decisions of superior or previous courts


Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The evidence of their intent is clear as day and is not subject for reinterpretation:

The evidence is as clear as day human life is created at conception and whether you believe the creator to be some higher being or simply the man and woman who engage in sexual procreation, with the act of conception man and woman become the creators and with that act of creation the creator endows the created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This is what we in law like to call a precedent a proof that the interpretation by the Supreme Court in RVW is simply wrong.
If it is as clear as day, why are we still arguing about this?

Where in the Declaration does it state that the moment of conception is the moment of creation?

Where in the Declaration, the Constitution, or any other of the Founding Fathers' writings do they refer to the science of genetics as the final arbiter of these questions?

You sound very sure, sir. It still doesn't make you right.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
If it is as clear as day, why are we still arguing about this?

Where in the Declaration does it state that the moment of conception is the moment of creation?

Where in the Declaration, the Constitution, or any other of the Founding Fathers' writings do they refer to the science of genetics as the final arbiter of these questions?

You sound very sure, sir. It still doesn't make you right.
con·cep·tion

con·cep·tion [kən sépshən]
(plural con·cep·tions)
n
1. biology conceiving of young: the fertilization of an egg by a sperm at the beginning of pregnancy
5. origin or beginnings: the beginnings or origin of something

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

cre·a·tor [kree áytər]
(plural cre·a·tors)
n
somebody who creates: somebody who brings something into existence

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

cre·ate [kree áyt]
(past cre·at·ed, past participle cre·at·ed, present participle cre·at·ing, 3rd person present singular cre·ates)
v
1. vt make: to bring somebody or something into existence

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


They are synonyms

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

prec·e·dent

prec·e·dent [préssəd’nt]
n (plural prec·e·dents)
1. example for later action or decision: an action or decision that can be subsequently used as an example for a similar decision or to justify a similar action
2. established practice: an established custom or practice
3. law requirement to follow earlier court decisions: the doctrine that requires a court to follow decisions of superior or previous courts
 
Last edited:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
con·cep·tion

con·cep·tion [k?n sépsh?n]
(plural con·cep·tions)
n
1. biology conceiving of young: the fertilization of an egg by a sperm at the beginning of pregnancy
5. origin or beginnings: the beginnings or origin of something

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
FIRST: this is Encarta. Not the Declaration of Independence. I asked for proof of what the Founding Fathers saw as the "creation" of life, not what Encarta says.

Second: when a dictionary puts numbers in front of definitions like that, it means they are SEPARATE definitions. One definition of "conception" is fertilization; a different definition is the beginning of something, which would be the synonym of creation. Not the same thing. Even if conception in biological terms is the creation of something, it is the creation of a zygote, not the creation of an individual with inalienable rights.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
cre·a·tor [kree áyt?r]
(plural cre·a·tors)
n
somebody who creates: somebody who brings something into existence

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

cre·ate [kree áyt]
(past cre·at·ed, past participle cre·at·ed, present participle cre·at·ing, 3rd person present singular cre·ates)
v
1. vt make: to bring somebody or something into existence

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


They are synonyms

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

prec·e·dent

prec·e·dent [préss?d’nt]
n (plural prec·e·dents)
1. example for later action or decision: an action or decision that can be subsequently used as an example for a similar decision or to justify a similar action
2. established practice: an established custom or practice
3. law requirement to follow earlier court decisions: the doctrine that requires a court to follow decisions of superior or previous courts
Yay for dictionaries! Have we got all of our terms straight now? Now can you show me where in the Declaration it equates the conception of a zygote with the creation of a life with inalienable rights? Or do I just have to accept your interpretation of the Founding Fathers' intent?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
FIRST: this is Encarta. Not the Declaration of Independence. I asked for proof of what the Founding Fathers saw as the "creation" of life, not what Encarta says.

Second: when a dictionary puts numbers in front of definitions like that, it means they are SEPARATE definitions. One definition of "conception" is fertilization; a different definition is the beginning of something, which would be the synonym of creation. Not the same thing. Even if conception in biological terms is the creation of something, it is the creation of a zygote, not the creation of an individual with inalienable rights.



Yay for dictionaries! Have we got all of our terms straight now? Now can you show me where in the Declaration it equates the conception of a zygote with the creation of a life with inalienable rights? Or do I just have to accept your interpretation of the Founding Fathers' intent?
When is human life begun? At conception. If it was not then there would be no need for sex because a fully developed child would just appear.

How do you create a baby? You have sex and the egg is fertilized by the sperm and thus the act of fertilizing that egg is creation.

Can you show me how creation could mean anything other than conception?
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
FutureinComing said, “IF THEY HAD EVER INDICATED THAT FETUSES SHOULD BE COUNTED AS PERSONS, SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
I doubt you will find any such evidence. Do remember that that generation DID give us the adage, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." Why shouldn't the same be true of unborn humans, when a significant number of pregnancies ended (in that era) in miscarriage or still-birth or even death within just a few days after birth?”



Man oh man. You compare humans to chickens? A miscarriage is much different than a planned premeditated abortion. One is at no fault of the mother, the other is the intention to kill the fetus.

I give our founding fathers more credit than that. I think abortion was so inconceivable that they did not need to put it in writing. They probably thought there never could be a woman would want to intentionally kill her unborn child. Life was precious in those days unlike today. To express absolute truth today has been declared to be “intolerant”.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Birth. When a person actually becomes a person. Then they get their rights. That is what the Founding Fathers intended. If you want to go back before birth to fertilization, why not go back further, to the creation of the sperm and the egg?

And how does seeing conception as different from creation mandate that a baby would have to spring into being withou sex? Aren't you forgetting about gestation, fetal development, and birth? Or do none of those matter once the zygote is conceived?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
doughgirl said:
FutureinComing said, “IF THEY HAD EVER INDICATED THAT FETUSES SHOULD BE COUNTED AS PERSONS, SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
I doubt you will find any such evidence. Do remember that that generation DID give us the adage, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." Why shouldn't the same be true of unborn humans, when a significant number of pregnancies ended (in that era) in miscarriage or still-birth or even death within just a few days after birth?”



Man oh man. You compare humans to chickens? A miscarriage is much different than a planned premeditated abortion. One is at no fault of the mother, the other is the intention to kill the fetus.

I give our founding fathers more credit than that. I think abortion was so inconceivable that they did not need to put it in writing. They probably thought there never could be a woman would want to intentionally kill her unborn child. Life was precious in those days unlike today. To express absolute truth today has been declared to be “intolerant”.
That's because to the left morals are relative. :roll:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
Birth. When a person actually becomes a person. Then they get their rights. That is what the Founding Fathers intended. If you want to go back before birth to fertilization, why not go back further, to the creation of the sperm and the egg?

And how does seeing conception as different from creation mandate that a baby would have to spring into being withou sex? Aren't you forgetting about gestation, fetal development, and birth? Or do none of those matter once the zygote is conceived?
Because sperm and eggs alone cannot create a child, however, when the two are mixed a child is conceived, and the created then possesses the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Because sperm and eggs alone cannot create a child, however, when the two are mixed a child is conceived, and the created then possesses the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Fascinating claim here, that a hydatidifomr mole is a "child." Ah, such is the contrived, deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole and lies of the prolifers.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Felicity what gets me is this..........they don't see the livign thing inside the woman as anything. In fact Coffee thinks that a nine month old in the womb, could be aborted. No problemo.
Just partially deliver them then suck their brains out. Most are viable at this gestational age. and yet Coffee thinks its ok. Can you believe it.

Trajan you said, "That's because to the left morals are relative." What morals? You mean they have them? :lol:

For them, there is no life until it is born and they talk like the act of abortion is a blessing. How does one reason with views like this?

Funny when I carried my two children they kicked the heck out of me for 3 months. I'd push in on my tummy and they would push back. I use to lay on my back and watch them roll across my stomach.

And one poster on here said, its only a clum of cells until born. Obviously none of them ever were in a delivery room or have had kids of their own. None have experienced the miracle and blessing of a child and the wonders of the whole birth process.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
doughgirl said:
Felicity what gets me is this..........they don't see the livign thing inside the woman as anything. In fact Coffee thinks that a nine month old in the womb, could be aborted. No problemo.
Just partially deliver them then suck their brains out. Most are viable at this gestational age. and yet Coffee thinks its ok. Can you believe it.

Trajan you said, "That's because to the left morals are relative." What morals? You mean they have them? :lol:

For them, there is no life until it is born and they talk like the act of abortion is a blessing. How does one reason with views like this?

Funny when I carried my two children they kicked the heck out of me for 3 months. I'd push in on my tummy and they would push back. I use to lay on my back and watch them roll across my stomach.

And one poster on here said, its only a clum of cells until born. Obviously none of them ever were in a delivery room or have had kids of their own. None have experienced the miracle and blessing of a child and the wonders of the whole birth process.
Oh they have them but they change according to who's in office. :lol:
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Forgive me if I intrude on this little soiree; let me know if you'd all be more comfortable without me here.

Doughgirl: an abortion at 9 months is not okay.

Trajan: You still need to prove that your definition is the one the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the document; otherwise, this discussion is moot. You have one interpretation of the word "created" in the Declaration; I have another. I say the Founding Fathers meant one does not get one's inalienable rights until they can reasonably be enforced, and that does not happen until the child is born and can live on its own; at that point, it has been "created" as a person with inalienable rights. The child cannot be granted its freedom, because it cannot be released from its mother; if it cannot have freedom, how can it possibly have a "right" to life separate from its mother's life?

And remember, it's not whether I'm right, it's whether my interpretation is one the Founding Fathers could have had. If it is, then you do not have proof that the Declaration refers to a fetus.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
Forgive me if I intrude on this little soiree; let me know if you'd all be more comfortable without me here.

Doughgirl: an abortion at 9 months is not okay.

Trajan: You still need to prove that your definition is the one the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the document; otherwise, this discussion is moot. You have one interpretation of the word "created" in the Declaration; I have another. I say the Founding Fathers meant one does not get one's inalienable rights until they can reasonably be enforced, and that does not happen until the child is born and can live on its own; at that point, it has been "created" as a person with inalienable rights. The child cannot be granted its freedom, because it cannot be released from its mother; if it cannot have freedom, how can it possibly have a "right" to life separate from its mother's life?

And remember, it's not whether I'm right, it's whether my interpretation is one the Founding Fathers could have had. If it is, then you do not have proof that the Declaration refers to a fetus.
Already proved it and the truths are self evident conception is creation that is impossible to deny except through revisionist historians and liberal judges who shread the constitution and the bill of rights then place the pieces back together to misrepresent the truth to serve their own ends. There is no other possible interpretation that the created are endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply for the fact that they are inalienable:

Inalienable -

in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb’l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, for example, because of being protected by law (formal)

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Regardless of whether or not abortion was, if what you say is true, considered bad by the founding fathers makes no difference. Things were different back then. Women didn't gain their right to vote until 1920. Surely you don't dispute that? The founding fathers aren't gods. They were men too who were influenced by their own time period. People then took different things into account and had a seperate way of thinking.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Regardless of whether or not abortion was, if what you say is true, considered bad by the founding fathers makes no difference. Things were different back then. Women didn't gain their right to vote until 1920. Surely you don't dispute that? The founding fathers aren't gods. They were men too who were influenced by their own time period. People then took different things into account and had a seperate way of thinking.
That's the whole problem with this country people have taken that perfect document and through their manipulation and reinterpretation of it in the guise of progress they have transformed this nation into the socialist monstrosity that we have today a government of, by, and for the government.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That's the whole problem with this country people have taken that perfect document and through their manipulation and reinterpretation of it in the guise of progress they have transformed this nation into the socialist monstrosity that we have today a government of, by, and for the government.
OK. . .

does that mean this whole thread was just trying to make that singular point or is there actually something debatable here?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
OK. . .

does that mean this whole thread was just trying to make that singular point or is there actually something debatable here?
Yes this thread was to prove the intent of the Founding Fathers and to prove that the Liberal Judges interpretation in the case of RVW was not only wrong but in total violation of the Constitution.
 
Top Bottom