Why pro-choice makes more sense

[jallman]

So if we're in agreement then how is that you can justify allowing the guardian to negate their responsibilities of stewardship in such a violent manner as abortion? That goes beyond abuse and neglect! It truncates the very life of the human offspring.

Because you said child in the post I agree with you on. An abortion terminates a fetus, not a child.

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Absolute shocker, I know, but another abortion thread has resulted in hot tempered arguments. Lets all put an end to this and quit with the name calling, or its off to the basement with ye.

 

[jallman]

Moderator's Warning:

Absolute shocker, I know, but another abortion thread has resulted in hot tempered arguments. Lets all put an end to this and quit with the name calling, or its off to the basement with ye.

I would hate to see an otherwise engaging discussion get sent to the basement because someone had to be a bit bipolar for the day.

 

[Felicity]

I would hate to see an otherwise engaging discussion get sent to the basement because someone had to be a bit bipolar for the day.

I hear Lithium helps with that, Joey... :mrgreen:

 

[jallman]

I hear Lithium helps with that, Joey... :mrgreen:

Is that first-hand experience, dear? :2wave:

 

[talloulou]

Because you said child in the post I agree with you on. An abortion terminates a fetus, not a child.

Well the unborn victims of violence act refers to children in utero and defines children in utero as such:

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

and the dictionary defines child as such:

child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

child - Definitions from Dictionary.com

So I honestly don't see any distinction between the two. It's probably as over my head as the whole idea of non-person humans. :doh

 

[jallman]

Well the unborn victims of violence act refers to children in utero and defines children in utero as such:



and the dictionary defines child as such:

child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

child - Definitions from Dictionary.com

So I honestly don't see any distinction between the two. It's probably as over my head as the whole idea of non-person humans. :doh

I dont think it's over your head as you are a very smart woman. However, I think you have your beliefs and I have mine. Currently, mine carry legal authority so I am cool with it. :mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

I think that is a really sissy thing to do...to beg someone to do something so you can hit the report button when they do. You really have hit rock bottom and ignore is where you belong.

I will also be sure to use all influence I have to see to it your trolling (i.e. begging for a reaction just so you can report it) sees some consequence.

I recall a news story some time back about a guy who was in custody for some stupid thing and told a police officer to spray him in the face with pepper. The officer did, and was later convicted of assault and misconduct.

So please, give yourself more rope to hang by while clicking away on that ignore button.

In the mean time, however, should you find it within yourself the ability to debate without resorting to ad-homs, I'll be right here.

 

[Jerry]

Why not?
Humans are animals, btw.

The constitution regards We The People, as in "persons", and although all humans are animals, not all animals are human.

 

[Jerry]

First of all, it wasn't an analogy. It was a syllogism containing two premises and a conclusion. A Modus Ponens in fact.

Second of all, let me see if I can take you step by step through one that you can understand.

Conclusion: God Exists.

Would you agree or disagree with this conclusion?

I ain’t playing games. Say it straight if it’s worth sayin at all.

 

[Jerry]

I dont think it's over your head as you are a very smart woman. However, I think you have your beliefs and I have mine. Currently, mine carry legal authority so I am cool with it. :mrgreen:

Here we see the "current legal standing" shell, the only place PC is safe. They can't make progress from their shell, but they can life out the night.

Every time PC leaves this shell they get smashed, so it's no surprise to see them stray not to far from it.

 

[jallman]

I recall a news story some time back about a guy who was in custody for some stupid thing and told a police officer to spray him in the face with pepper. The officer did, and was later convicted of assault and misconduct.

So please, give yourself more rope to hang by while clicking away on that ignore button.

In the mean time, however, should you find it within yourself the ability to debate without resorting to ad-homs, I'll be right here.

I offered no ad homs that you didn't beg for, so let go of this infantile tirade you are on. Trust me in this, jerry, I am not happy about the way you have brought discord into my favorite forum.

You keep grabbing at straws and false hopes. You know full well that I can argue the benefits AND the disadvantages of my stance. Why do you keep trying to make a jest and a power play of what has been seen, until now, a serious and worthwhile debate? Who is pulling your strings to make you act so out of character?

 

[1069]

Why do you keep trying to make a jest and a power play of what has been seen, until now, a serious and worthwhile debate? Who is pulling your strings to make you act so out of character?

That's "out of character"?
For months now, that's all he's done is troll, disrupt, derail.
I seem to recall a time when he was something more than just an annoying troll, but only vaguely.

 

[Felicity]

Currently, mine carry legal authority so I am cool with it. :mrgreen:

Currently--being the operative word...

The only thing Roe has going for it is its longevity. Stare decisis only goes so far, and SCOTUS has the duty to uphold the constitution --even when faced with a prior ruling that was constitutionally flawed. It doesn't have to overturn the WHOLE thing at once...Gonzales v. Carhart is one step in the right direction of making RvW MOOT. Don't DOUBT that there will be more...

I predict (although I may be dreaming) that the "personhood" question WILL come before the court at some point--just like it did with Dred Scott. That will be a fun one!:mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

Every time PC leaves this shell they get smashed, so it's no surprise to see them stray not to far from it.

PC is outgrowing the shell. The cultural effect of what Roe began is out of control and the polarization forces the issue to light. The question of the integrity of Roe will not go away--it is too FLAWED to stand as it does currently.

 

[Jerry]

I offered no ad homs that you didn't beg for, so let go of this infantile tirade you are on. Trust me in this, jerry, I am not happy about the way you have brought discord into my favorite forum.

You keep grabbing at straws and false hopes. You know full well that I can argue the benefits AND the disadvantages of my stance. Why do you keep trying to make a jest and a power play of what has been seen, until now, a serious and worthwhile debate? Who is pulling your strings to make you act so out of character?

Post 110 was not solicited. You are wrong again. Everything else you did to yourself. So go ahead and whine about it, say I threw you under a bus or whatever else suits your fancy, it lets me know I'm right.

In any event, denying that all men are created equal is to deny the cornerstone of legal theory which the 14th amendment, women's right to vote, the slavery ban and the soon to be gay marriage stand, because if all men are not created equal, then they are not endowed with the same inalienable rights, and it all comes apart from there.

I don't expect your argument to actually win here, even if you could do it with out ad-homs, but what concerns me is that there is a growing body of thought which concurs that no one is equal.

 

[Jerry]

Hmm, lookie at what I missed yesterday....

Exactly! Now you up to speed.

I always have been. Are you?

Their value is not equal, except with regard to weight. That's where the equality ends. People are not equal except with regard to rights under our laws. That's where our equality ends. You get it now?

Respond to what I actually posted, please.

I did. Do I need to post it phoenetically or something?

Lots of love here, I like it, especially since post 138 doesn't say what you quoted, but this:

Equal weight, different things. The law is about equal rights, not same rights.

I think you're finally getting it.

Boy, PC just isn't on their game.

Equal rights, different things; a ton of feathers weighs as much as a ton or iron even though they're different.

Just keep in mind that it's "equal", not "same".

 

[rivrrat]

Hmm, lookie at what I missed yesterday....



Lots of love here, I like it, especially since post 138 doesn't say what you quoted, but this:



Boy, PC just isn't on their game.

Equal rights, different things; a ton of feathers weighs as much as a ton or iron even though they're different.

Just keep in mind that it's "equal", not "same".

My my... talk about someone not being "on their game".

I said equal weight. That is it. A pound of feathers is not equal to a pound of iron. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of iron. Or, a pound equals a pound. Their VALUE is not equal. THEY are not equal. The only thing "equal" is the weight. So, pound = pound. Not "feathers = iron".

Look up the definition of equal and you will see the word "same" in there as well. You will also see something about "value". There are a number of specific definitions, but what it boils down to is that we are not equal on many, many levels. We persons have equal rights, as we should. That's it. Equal RIGHTS.

 

[rivrrat]

The constitution regards We The People, as in "persons", and although all humans are animals, not all animals are human.

That's right. Persons. Not all humans are persons. And not all persons have to be human.

 

[Felicity]

Post 110 was not solicited. You are wrong again. Everything else you did to yourself. So go ahead and whine about it, say I threw you under a bus or whatever else suits your fancy, it lets me know I'm right.

:shock: What the hell is goin' on here? I checked that post, Jer, and I understand your taking issue with it, but the "liar" part is confusing--and I totally don't get what "camel boy" means or what it has to do with anything You know jallman thanks everybody for various reasons--not necessarily a wholesale endorsement of everything that person says--hence the "ideologically promiscuous " nomenclature. He's an idea slut.:lol:

In any event, denying that all men are created equal is to deny the cornerstone of legal theory which the 14th amendment, women's right to vote, the slavery ban and the soon to be gay marriage stand, because if all men are not created equal, then they are not endowed with the same inalienable rights, and it all comes apart from there.

TOTALLY CORRECT.:applaud

I don't expect your argument to actually win here, even if you could do it with out ad-homs, but what concerns me is that there is a growing body of thought which concurs that no one is equal.

That's that polarization that is contributed to by the RvW decision. It will come to a head....it already is....

 

[talloulou]

I don't expect your argument to actually win here, even if you could do it with out ad-homs, but what concerns me is that there is a growing body of thought which concurs that no one is equal.

I agree with you 100%. It is highly disturbing. They act as if they don't understand the basic principal.

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.

Anyone who reads that knows they aren't implying that all men look the same, think the same, weigh the same, can do math the same, play music the same, ect....

Yet they pretend that the meaning is unclear and then they pull it apart and say we're not all the same, some of us are smarter. Then they get all cynical and act as if this basic principal is naive and intenable and thus dismissable. To attempt to tear down one of the basic tenents of democracy like that borders on sacrilege.

All men are created equal speaks to our inalienable rights, our basic human rights, that we all have. These rights should not have to be earned, they can not be lost, and if not applied across the board to ALL humans the statement becomes all men, EXCEPT..... and that is unacceptable.

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

 

[Felicity]

That's right. Persons. Not all humans are persons. And not all persons have to be human.

You are aware that philosophical arguments are changeable....right?

 

[talloulou]

That's right. Persons. Not all humans are persons. And not all persons have to be human.

It is not all persons have inalienable rights it is all men. In other words all mankind ie, ALL HUMANS. To deny that is to strip the basic tenet off all meaning.

 

[Felicity]

We persons have equal rights, as we should. That's it. Equal RIGHTS.

That's why "person" is a lousy basis for determining human rights.

 

[Felicity]

It is not all persons have inalienable rights it is all men. In other words all mankind ie, ALL HUMANS. To deny that is to strip the basic tenet off all meaning.

She's gonna go silly about the DOI rather than the Constitution.....The DOI is the one that says "all men" have these "inalienable rights" that are "self-evident"--the Constitution says "We the People..."

My feeling...:roll: