What is her punishment?

[steen]

You totally missed the point of the post, substituted some imaginary assertion that I'm claiming or acting in a manner as though Roe-v-Wade does not exist and transposed such a fantasy upon my words.

The SC does not decide *fact*, it interprets law and sets legal precedent, again, not *fact*.

According to your stance, if SCOTUS decided that gravity does not exist and that the world were ruled by invisible flying pink elephants, you would call that *fact*.

Legally, that would be a fact, then. And it would be factual to point out that the SCOTUS had found that to be a legal fact.

That you are THAT ignorant of Constitutional law may be an explanation for how confused you are about what the law actually is.

I suppose that you are still denying that the legal definition of "person" is "a human being"; despite having been shown positive proof to the contrary?

The SCOTUS defined "person" in their ruling to not include the unborn, that is what I am stating. As such, that is part of the definition of person regardless of what sophistry you try to irrelevantly interject.

Silly liberal :roll:

Jallman was wrong. You are not bright or honest enough to have a meaningful discussion with.:roll:

 

[steen]

Face it, Dude, the days of Roe are numbered.

Really, really, REALLY irrelevant to the point of Roe vs Wade currently defining legal issues as long as it stands. LAME avoidance, how cowardly.

 

[Jerry]

Legally, that would be a fact, then. And it would be factual to point out that the SCOTUS had found that to be a legal fact.

That you are THAT ignorant of Constitutional law may be an explanation for how confused you are about what the law actually is.

The SCOTUS defined "person" in their ruling to not include the unborn, that is what I am stating. As such, that is part of the definition of person regardless of what sophistry you try to irrelevantly interject.

Jallman was wrong. You are not bright or honest enough to have a meaningful discussion with.:roll:

Ya, see, you totally missed the point again.

I wasn't talking about legal fact, I was talking about actual fact. Like the kind of fact that science could prove or disprove, not rather or not a law exists.

I don't think that Jallman has posted on this thread recently......and I wasn't referring to him......what are you talking about?

 

[Jerry]

Really, really, REALLY irrelevant to the point of Roe vs Wade currently defining legal issues as long as it stands. LAME avoidance, how cowardly.

Fantasia, against a liberal, victory is defined as the point where you reduce the liberal to name calling and/or personal attacks, since liberals are not capable of rational discourse.

Congratulations.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasia, against a liberal, victory is defined as the point where you reduce the liberal to name calling and/or personal attacks, since liberals are not capable of rational discourse.

Congratulations.

Thanx. And thanx for your valuable contribution to this forum.

Isn't it great to see the Pro-Death crowd struggle to turn logic upside down and watch as it lands on their heads?

 

[steen]

Ya, see, you totally missed the point again.

I wasn't talking about legal fact, I was talking about actual fact. Like the kind of fact that science could prove or disprove, not rather or not a law exists.

Ah, then it of course would be dishonest to talk about personhood, as that is not a scientific concept. But that's just more dishonest, prolife, deceptive, revisionist linguistics. As we have come to expect.

I don't think that Jallman has posted on this thread recently......and I wasn't referring to him......what are you talking about?

Jallman in another tread suggested that putting fantasea on ignore was a mistake, as she had serious and honest debate to provide. And no, jallman was wrong about that.

 

[Jerry]

Ah, then it of course would be dishonest to talk about personhood, as that is not a scientific concept.

Sure it is. The issue of "personhood" is a valid scientific discussion, as one can cite scientific evidence to support their view and/or refute an opponent. Your own arguments are evidence of this. The problem comes when we first do not have a common definition of "person", and thus do not sher a common concept of which to compare the scientific evidence to so as to validate or rule out.

In an abortion debate of “personhood”, to often the hypothesis is incomplete by not first having this common definition of “person”. Until it is no such scientific testing to determine the presence of a “person” can be don.

Do you remember Future-Incoming's sig? He has since removed it. His challenge for some universal definition of "person", which would apply to both God, aliens and humans, regardless of physicality?

I have a suggestion for such a definition: A sentient information system. This definition would apply to any hypothetical aliens, Man, God, demons, etc.

But that's just more dishonest, prolife, deceptive, revisionist linguistics. As we have come to expect.

Well, I've come to expect that you will always accuse those who either 1: disagree with you, or 2: not reduce their pro life view to a dismissive personal opinion; of such things. There is no telling you otherwise as you are bound and determined to take out your hate on others.

Jallman in another tread suggested that putting fantasia on ignore was a mistake, as she had serious and honest debate to provide. And no, jallman was wrong about that.

Oh.
Will Fantasia be going on your ignore list then?

 

[bus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StacStang89
What on Earth.
Of course circumstances matter. If I had a 9 year old daughter and she was raped by her grandfather, an abortion would be the best option.

I think so too, but there are some who think, because the fetus is not at fault in any way, that the rape victim should carry until birth. Of course, in your example, the child is nine years old, so probably very few would be so extreme as to expect her to give birth.

Whoa buddy, a life is a life, who are you to play god and decide who lives and dies.

 

[Jerry]

Whoa buddy, a life is a life, who are you to play god and decide who lives and dies.

Tryreading wasn’t demanding any particular cores of action, rather, Tryreading was representing a pro life view in the third person.

In any event, if the fetus is a "person", then it is the state who's place it is to "play God". If a fetus is not a "person", then it is the parents place to "play God".

 

[Fantasea]

Tryreading wasn’t demanding any particular cores of action, rather, Tryreading was representing a pro life view in the third person.

In any event, if the fetus is a "person", then it is the state who's place it is to "play God". If a fetus is not a "person", then it is the parents place to "play God".

Is the fetus a person, or is it not a person?

What is the reasoning behind your answer?

 

[tryreading]

Whoa buddy, a life is a life, who are you to play god and decide who lives and dies.

Like Jerry said, my intent was not to play so lofty a part, as I went the other direction and played devil's advocate.

But I am pro-choice, so you might mistakenly think of me as more than his advocate.

 

[Jerry]

Is the fetus a person, or is it not a person?

What is the reasoning behind your answer?

Within the world of absolutes, I define “person” as “a sentient information system”. Given that *I* operates independently of the body, and thus independent of a brain, *I* can not be acutely defined using the flesh as a measure; for such would automatically rule out the existence of God as well.

Until the day comes when science, through the advancement of Quantum theory and similar, can scientifically define and eventually test for the existence of a soul within the ZEF, at any stage, I am left with only my philosophy and faith in God. Science is much to ignorant of the universe to yet have a say on this issue.

Yes, a fetus is a person, as the prebirth existence of *I* is witnessed to us by God. The life of a ZEF should only be taken with just cause. I do not observe rape, incest, opposing will of the mother, social inconvenience, financial unpreparedness, non life threatening emotional stress (with an exception to extremely young age) or non life threatening health endangerment (with exception of the pregnancy causing a permanent disability) as any such just cause.

Within the world of today's law, I would be happy just to see Abortion-on-demand and Judicial Bypass don away with, as these are societaly destructive behaviors.