I have always wanted a clear answer from liberals to one question about abortion: How can the fetus be no more than a mass of tissues not unlike a tumor when the mother and an abortionist wants to terminate its existence; but, if someone causes that fetus to abort by an act of violence or carelessness causing an accident, it is a human being and criminal charges and/or civil penalties can be levied against the party causing the death?
A fetus cannot be a non-human being in case of abortion or a human being in case of violence or an accident. It is either one thing or the other. Surely, no one, not even the mother can have the right to decide on their own whether or not a fetus is a human being.
So, if liberals say a fetus is just a mass of tissue, if a man kicks the woman in the gut and she aborts the tumor, the most he can be charged with is assault and battery with intent ot do bodily harm and unlawful external surgery to remove a tumor. On the other hand, if a fetus is a human being then to terminate its life via abortion is an act of cold-blooded murder by the mother and abortionist. Now which is it?
Neiman - 11:01am on 01/23/2008
Shrug. I didn’t intend to have a moral debate—which seems to me all that anti-abortionists are capable of.
We (ideally) don’t legislate morality, if we did, we would be citizens of a theocracy, not a democracy. Roe v. Wade was, in fact, decided in order to correct this very problem.
So frankly, I don’t care if abortionists are killing a mass of tissues or a human being. There are plenty of situations where our laws condone the killing of living beings (ex: the death penalty). So please don’t mix your moral arguments into legal discourse.
The question is really a matter of which is better for our society (THATs why we have laws): Is it more important to have a right to privacy or to protect unborn life? I think it’s the former, you are free to argue the latter, just don’t do it under the twisted auspices of absolute logic—for every logical argument that you raise to the latter, I can offer an equally valid for the former.
Hairy Polemic - 11:01am on 01/23/2008
Is it more important to have a right to privacy or to protect unborn life? I think it’s the former,
Your right to privacy ends when it affects the life of another human being.
Ace25 - 11:01am on 01/23/2008
Your right to privacy ends when it affects the life of another human being.
Or… not. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Guess you haven’t been keeping up with the case law.
Hairy Polemic - 12:01pm on 01/23/2008
Hairy:
So please don’t mix your moral arguments into legal discourse.
Who made you god and said you get to set the rules of debate here pal? If you don’t like the manner I or others debate, too damn bad!
There are plenty of situations where our laws condone the killing of living beings (ex: the death penalty).
(1) Murder, the deliberate taking of the life of an innocent human being is against the law. (2) The death penalty involves the state sanctioned termination of the life of a person found guilty of murder, for the good of society and to exact the ultimate penalty. (3) A fetus is a wholly innocent human being, and yet by your own words you have no problem allowing a mother to kill an innocent human being, an act of cold-blooded murder for financial reasons, because she was too damn lazy to use contraceptives or because she just finds them inconvenient to her lifestyle. (4) The latter seeming to be your views, what is wrong with killing that innocent human being an hour, a day, a week, a month or longer after birth? Let the mother just off her children at any age if they are inconvenient to her. (5) I’ll bet you are in favor of physician assisted suicide and both active and passive euthansia? (6) In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty? Well, except I’ll bet you are against the death penalty? How about conservatives, let’s kill them all, okay?
not. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Guess you haven’t been keeping up with the case law.
Case law, even SCOTUS decisions are not the holy grail, they can be and often are based on poor law and are even unconstitutional, and then the liberals dig up stare decisis to say that despite Roe v Wade being unconstitutional and based on poor law, it becomes settled law, in effect amending the Constitution because of a bullshit theory of settled law based on the need to abide by decided cases.
To allow that theory to exist we must apologize to the Nazi’s for killing Jews and others, because after all, it was legal. Those damn Jews were sent to camps and killed by judicial decree. There was plenty of case law. Who are we to say they were wrong? These damn Jews were inconvenient to have around, they were socially, politically and economically undesireable, so just kill them, right?
To deliberately, consciously take the life of an innocent human being has always been 1st Degree Murder, it is now and always shall be, despite the liberals love of the cultuire of death and their belief in their peculiar right to decide if a human being is politically, socially or morally acceptable to them. If not, kill them, right?
Neiman - 01:01pm on 01/23/2008
In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty?
Unless we have laws that say otherwise, yes.
Well, except I’ll bet you are against the death penalty?
Nope. In fact, your attempts to neatly box me into a “values paradigm” illustrate your ignorance.
Case law, even SCOTUS decisions are not the holy grail, they can be and often are based on poor law and are even unconstitutional, and then the liberals dig up stare decisis to say that despite Roe v Wade being unconstitutional and based on poor law, it becomes settled law, in effect amending the Constitution because of a bullshit theory of settled law based on the need to abide by decided cases.
I’m not sure how you propose to run a common-law system without stare decisis. ALL SCOTUS decisions are constitutional until overruled. That’s how the system works, if you don’t like the fundamental rules governing our society, move to another country.
To allow that theory to exist we must apologize to the Nazi’s for killing Jews and others, because after all, it was legal.
Prime example of how casuistry got its bad name.
My friend, you smear shit on the very face of logical discourse. It’s scary.
To deliberately, consciously take the life of an innocent human being has always been 1st Degree Murder, it is now and always shall be, despite the liberals love of the cultuire of death and their belief in their peculiar right to decide if a human being is politically, socially or morally acceptable to them. If not, kill them, right?
No. This is more flawed casuistry on your part. Please come up with better analogies next time.
P.S., Please notice that I have yet to argue for or against abortion—just your bad logic pertaining thereto.
Hairy Polemic - 02:01pm on 01/23/2008
In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty?
Unless we have laws that say otherwise, yes.
we are supposed to have a “government of the people, by the people and for the people”
The majority of people think it is incorrect to kill the unborn for social reasons. The majority of the people do not agree with Roe v Wade Even Ms. Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade states:
“Our education should be focused on exposing abortion for what it is: the killing of an innocent.”
The current law is incorrect and will be overturned as more and more people realize the truth behind abortion.
Ace25 - 03:01pm on 01/23/2008
I’m not sure how you propose to run a common-law system without stare decisis. ALL SCOTUS decisions are constitutional until overruled. That’s how the system works, if you don’t like the fundamental rules governing our society, move to another country.
(1) Who is going to overrule SCOTUS? As a matter of fact, in a three separate but equal branches of government every branch has an equal duty and responsibility to interpret the Constitution and even defy the SCOTUS if they believe that branch have misinterpreted the Constitution.
(2) For lower court judges or even SCOTUS to make make laws that violate the Constitution and then justify it by stare decisis is to amend the constitution outside the Amendment process, which is only to be decided by the people, not judges, the legislature or any other governing body. So in Rove v Wade the SCOTUS made bad law, they invented a constitutional right that did not exist, thus violating the Constitution. Then by virtue of stare decisis Roe V Wade it becomes accepted law and amends the Constitution outside the Constitutionally mandated amendment process. That is unconstitutional!
(3) I like the Constitution as written by our Founding Father’s and while not always to my liking I accept the lawful Constitutional Amendments by a vote of the people. It is you that does not like these fundamental rules that were designed to run this country, as you seem to have disdain for the Constitution. Maybe you should get your liberal ass out of the country.
You self define logical discourse according to your socialist principles and attack me for defending the Constitution and life because I won’t obey your bullshit, dictatorial rules. There are certain core moral principles that must rule any civilized nation and that must be enacted into law; and the most fundamental of them all is that murder is morally and thus must be legally wrong, no matter how liberals try and define it, and abortion is First Degree Premeditated Murder and must be held to be against the laws of humanity.
The Left is part and parcel of the culture of death in this country, arguing in favor of murder whether it be abortion, passive or active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; and any civilized people that wants to remain free and safe in their person must oppose this culture of death, even if it means taking up arms against the government, or they shall not remain free or safe from the state.
Neiman - 05:01pm on 01/23/2008
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams
“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782
“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson
Our Founding Father’s, while not desirous of a theocracy as a form of government and understandigng the dangers government is to true faith, desired a secular nation that was built upon the Judeo-Christian moral principles, while prohibiting the government from meddling in religiuous worship. In our National Charter, The Declaration of Independence, our dependence upon Nature’s God as the sole guarantor of our liberty was made clear and our Laws & By-Laws, the Constitution, enacted into those social-moral principles into our laws, by which we would govern a free, religious minded people. To suggest that murder of innocent human beings in the womb based on a nebulous principle of a right to privacy was at all anticipated by or would ever be countenanced by our Founding Father’s is to make a complete, deliberate lie out of our early history and the social-moral priciples that ruled the hearts of these great men as they crafted the documents that established our liberty. They would not ever accept any such definition of our Constitution.
I have always wanted a clear answer from liberals to one question about abortion: How can the fetus be no more than a mass of tissues not unlike a tumor when the mother and an abortionist wants to terminate its existence; but, if someone causes that fetus to abort by an act of violence or carelessness causing an accident, it is a human being and criminal charges and/or civil penalties can be levied against the party causing the death?
A fetus cannot be a non-human being in case of abortion or a human being in case of violence or an accident. It is either one thing or the other. Surely, no one, not even the mother can have the right to decide on their own whether or not a fetus is a human being.
So, if liberals say a fetus is just a mass of tissue, if a man kicks the woman in the gut and she aborts the tumor, the most he can be charged with is assault and battery with intent ot do bodily harm and unlawful external surgery to remove a tumor. On the other hand, if a fetus is a human being then to terminate its life via abortion is an act of cold-blooded murder by the mother and abortionist. Now which is it?
Shrug. I didn’t intend to have a moral debate—which seems to me all that anti-abortionists are capable of.
We (ideally) don’t legislate morality, if we did, we would be citizens of a theocracy, not a democracy. Roe v. Wade was, in fact, decided in order to correct this very problem.
So frankly, I don’t care if abortionists are killing a mass of tissues or a human being. There are plenty of situations where our laws condone the killing of living beings (ex: the death penalty). So please don’t mix your moral arguments into legal discourse.
The question is really a matter of which is better for our society (THATs why we have laws): Is it more important to have a right to privacy or to protect unborn life? I think it’s the former, you are free to argue the latter, just don’t do it under the twisted auspices of absolute logic—for every logical argument that you raise to the latter, I can offer an equally valid for the former.
Your right to privacy ends when it affects the life of another human being.
Or… not. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Guess you haven’t been keeping up with the case law.
Hairy:
Who made you god and said you get to set the rules of debate here pal? If you don’t like the manner I or others debate, too damn bad!
(1) Murder, the deliberate taking of the life of an innocent human being is against the law. (2) The death penalty involves the state sanctioned termination of the life of a person found guilty of murder, for the good of society and to exact the ultimate penalty. (3) A fetus is a wholly innocent human being, and yet by your own words you have no problem allowing a mother to kill an innocent human being, an act of cold-blooded murder for financial reasons, because she was too damn lazy to use contraceptives or because she just finds them inconvenient to her lifestyle. (4) The latter seeming to be your views, what is wrong with killing that innocent human being an hour, a day, a week, a month or longer after birth? Let the mother just off her children at any age if they are inconvenient to her. (5) I’ll bet you are in favor of physician assisted suicide and both active and passive euthansia? (6) In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty? Well, except I’ll bet you are against the death penalty? How about conservatives, let’s kill them all, okay?
Case law, even SCOTUS decisions are not the holy grail, they can be and often are based on poor law and are even unconstitutional, and then the liberals dig up stare decisis to say that despite Roe v Wade being unconstitutional and based on poor law, it becomes settled law, in effect amending the Constitution because of a bullshit theory of settled law based on the need to abide by decided cases.
To allow that theory to exist we must apologize to the Nazi’s for killing Jews and others, because after all, it was legal. Those damn Jews were sent to camps and killed by judicial decree. There was plenty of case law. Who are we to say they were wrong? These damn Jews were inconvenient to have around, they were socially, politically and economically undesireable, so just kill them, right?
To deliberately, consciously take the life of an innocent human being has always been 1st Degree Murder, it is now and always shall be, despite the liberals love of the cultuire of death and their belief in their peculiar right to decide if a human being is politically, socially or morally acceptable to them. If not, kill them, right?
Unless we have laws that say otherwise, yes.
Nope. In fact, your attempts to neatly box me into a “values paradigm” illustrate your ignorance.
I’m not sure how you propose to run a common-law system without stare decisis. ALL SCOTUS decisions are constitutional until overruled. That’s how the system works, if you don’t like the fundamental rules governing our society, move to another country.
Prime example of how casuistry got its bad name.
My friend, you smear shit on the very face of logical discourse. It’s scary.
No. This is more flawed casuistry on your part. Please come up with better analogies next time.
P.S., Please notice that I have yet to argue for or against abortion—just your bad logic pertaining thereto.
we are supposed to have a “government of the people, by the people and for the people”
The majority of people think it is incorrect to kill the unborn for social reasons. The majority of the people do not agree with Roe v Wade Even Ms. Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade states:
“Our education should be focused on exposing abortion for what it is: the killing of an innocent.”
The current law is incorrect and will be overturned as more and more people realize the truth behind abortion.
(1) Who is going to overrule SCOTUS? As a matter of fact, in a three separate but equal branches of government every branch has an equal duty and responsibility to interpret the Constitution and even defy the SCOTUS if they believe that branch have misinterpreted the Constitution.
(2) For lower court judges or even SCOTUS to make make laws that violate the Constitution and then justify it by stare decisis is to amend the constitution outside the Amendment process, which is only to be decided by the people, not judges, the legislature or any other governing body. So in Rove v Wade the SCOTUS made bad law, they invented a constitutional right that did not exist, thus violating the Constitution. Then by virtue of stare decisis Roe V Wade it becomes accepted law and amends the Constitution outside the Constitutionally mandated amendment process. That is unconstitutional!
(3) I like the Constitution as written by our Founding Father’s and while not always to my liking I accept the lawful Constitutional Amendments by a vote of the people. It is you that does not like these fundamental rules that were designed to run this country, as you seem to have disdain for the Constitution. Maybe you should get your liberal ass out of the country.
You self define logical discourse according to your socialist principles and attack me for defending the Constitution and life because I won’t obey your bullshit, dictatorial rules. There are certain core moral principles that must rule any civilized nation and that must be enacted into law; and the most fundamental of them all is that murder is morally and thus must be legally wrong, no matter how liberals try and define it, and abortion is First Degree Premeditated Murder and must be held to be against the laws of humanity.
The Left is part and parcel of the culture of death in this country, arguing in favor of murder whether it be abortion, passive or active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; and any civilized people that wants to remain free and safe in their person must oppose this culture of death, even if it means taking up arms against the government, or they shall not remain free or safe from the state.
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams
“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782
“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson
Our Founding Father’s, while not desirous of a theocracy as a form of government and understandigng the dangers government is to true faith, desired a secular nation that was built upon the Judeo-Christian moral principles, while prohibiting the government from meddling in religiuous worship. In our National Charter, The Declaration of Independence, our dependence upon Nature’s God as the sole guarantor of our liberty was made clear and our Laws & By-Laws, the Constitution, enacted into those social-moral principles into our laws, by which we would govern a free, religious minded people. To suggest that murder of innocent human beings in the womb based on a nebulous principle of a right to privacy was at all anticipated by or would ever be countenanced by our Founding Father’s is to make a complete, deliberate lie out of our early history and the social-moral priciples that ruled the hearts of these great men as they crafted the documents that established our liberty. They would not ever accept any such definition of our Constitution.