Not all of them are brain dead. Not always. In any event, what does this have to do with abortion? If you're making any argument at all, it's that fetuses should be regarded as more simply because they still have great potential, whereas a brain dead person has none (according to you, that is). Is that your argument? If so, I agree that fetuses should be regarded, but I don't agree that we should regard them any more or less than anyone else.
We hold..., but not "these are absolute" as everyone knows and accepts. How about those who hold differently? More over it is obvious that people are NOT created equally. What about those who do not believe that people are created? And that does exactly "life" and pursuit of happiness" mean? Yes liberty IS self evident. To be sure these ARE nice ideals, socialist in some ways, but not implementable. The mother of (*)(*)(*)(*) ups is vagueness like life and pursuit of happiness, and vagueness can not be protected or enforced. Yet over all the years it has been done, no one found it to be a constitutional violation. Why not? Privacy IS freedom and by what power can anyone impose on a woman's freedom and force her to gestate, enslave her organs to something that is clearly not on par with her. If there is a primary right then it is freedom, because life without it is meaningless. Those who love it with without hesitation give up life for freedom. Those who wish to deny it to others want to make them believe that existing is better than being free. One more thing. Don't you find it odd that before the words "we hold...created equally" were even contemplated, those who subscribed to them held slaves and did not consider women and children to be equal to anything. Were they hypocrites or they meant something else?
You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. A fetus is in the process of being created, it is not yet "A creation."
So what? The Declaration of Independence gives us immense insight into the minds of the Founding Fathers, and ultimately the intention of the Constitution. Nonsense. The fetus has already been created; its merely developing like we all do, continuously.
Okay, I said I'd play this game for a minute, not repeat, reiterate, and regurgitate endlessly. Most people have enough innate sense to recognize that one cannot have liberty or pursue happiness if one has been denied life. One last time, if you do not understand the concepts of Pursuit of Happiness as defined by the Enlightenment and Individual Rights, please refer to the authors I've already cited. Honestly, most of this is such nonsense I don't care to respond. "It is obvious that people are NOT created equally"? We all got here by Sperm + Egg - seems pretty "equally created" (not to mention undeniable and self-evident). No, not in the least. Funny you should mention this as I was just about to post on this same issue in the Kwanzaa thread. First, your statement is incorrect. Some of the men who crafted the founding documents were slaveholders, some were not. Franklin was vehemently against slavery and is the one who insisted that "property" be replaced with "pursuit of happiness"...slavery was one reason why. Second, women did not have voting rights, children still do not - that does not equate with "not consider(ed) to be equal to anything". That's hyperbole, or a misunderstanding of the historical facts. I suggest studying up on The Three-Fifths Compromise. As you can see, this clearly did not apply to women and children. Finally, the moral conflict you are alluding to is rather amusing, in its way (considering your earlier assertion that these were "thinkers, no more than"). You see, indentured servitude and slavery - of people of all races - was common place through the 1600-1700s, all across Europe. It was a fact of life that the framers had to deal with. (as to why blacks became slaves instead of indentured servants like white "imports", please see Anthony Johnson and John Casor). Slavery was of profound concern to, and hotly debated at the Constitutional Convention. The framers were deeply aware of the inconsistency...again...a reason to insist on 3/5 personhood...in order to keep the Southern Slaveowners from gaining too much control in Congress. This was their attempt to mitigate the slavery of their day and move the political ball forward.
Oh I am sorry, I kept you from masturbating in the closet? Really? Who would have thought? But did you know that it takes a broader perspective to recognize that tyranny starts with one imposition after the other. tell that to the inner city kids, see how they will welcome your condescending pompousness. Honestly, you are not capable and when your pretend intellect runs out you just decline because you are afraid of being unmasked. Wow, these astounding revelations from you. I was convinced till now that the stork brought us and that was the equality. Oh goodie, other can share in your grandiloquent wisdom. Yes, I stand corrected, thanks for correcting me. Of course it is, if you are on the right side of it. Yes it was. It was also then that it was discovered that even among the equals, some are more equal than others. No doubt giving the inspiration to Orwell. You mean choosing the lesser evil much like abortion. It is better to kill a fetus than take away the self determination of a woman.
The DoI is merely a statement of intent, it has no legal force whatsoever. http://candst.tripod.com/doipurp.htm DURING THE FIRST fifteen years following its adoption, then, the Declaration of Independence seems to have been all but forgotten, particularly within the United States, except as the means by which Americans announced their separation from Great Britain. The histories and political writings of the 1780s generally describe the document "primarily as the act of independence." Participants in the extensive debates over the creation and ratification of the federal constitution mentioned the Declaration, again, very infrequently and then generally cited its assertion of the people's right to "abolish or alter their governments" and to found new ones that "to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 2 No, the fetus is in the process of forming. When it is capable of surviving without attachment to another, it can be considered "created." When its body cannot support its own existence, it is still in the process.
Actually, I'm quoting neither here...I'm quoting the original draft of the DoI...and if you go look at the first drafts of the Constitution of the State of Va, you will see basically the same language. Or if you read the works of Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Ben Franklin, James Madison, other signers, and those who influenced them. The point being, these are the founding principles of a new republic. The violations committed by the King against the people (as listed in the Declaration) are addressed in the Constitution...which still was not enough for ratification. The states refused to ratify the Constitution until more rights were "enumerated" (Bill of Rights). Remember, these were people whose Lives were dictated by the whims of Tyrants (the self-concerned and powerful). First the declaration, then the solution. This is why our Constitution does not tell people what they can do...but rather tells the Federal Govt what it cannot do. Oh no, no...you have it all wrong. It is in the process of dying...as are all creations...like I said, you have only one place to go from here: to determine at what point on the Continuum Of Life that a human is less than a human.
It gives us insight into what the Founding Fathers were thinking, which is quite useful when attempting to explain the Constitution to people like you. Also, don't present me with some useless website by some "history buff" who couldn't get his nonsense published anywhere but a personal website. Secondly, he is referring, no doubt, to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts. All I can say is that people - all people - are hypocritical at some point in their lives. False. No scientific basis for this whatsoever. No scientific basis for this whatsoever. I have noticed that the only way the pro-murderers can convince anyone they are right is through the use of pseudo-science. It's quite pathetic.
LOL. Ya know you've hit some nerve when someone comes out slinging insults. Would that be anything like someone further on the continuum imposing their supremacy over someone newer on the continuum? There are millions who can tell no one anything. But speaking of inner city kids, why bother with my pompous words when they have Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood)? On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." She advocated immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107 On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12 On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) And black inner city kids may wish to familiarize themselves with her Negro Project. You really have no idea what the 3/5 Compromise was, what it means, or what it was designed to do, do you? No I don't mean that; don't put words in my mouth.
What insult? I just expressed regret if I kept you from some pressing activity, since you indicated that you had little time to devote to replying. Since you mention it, why the defensive posturing? Such an intellectual power house as yourself could not possibly be insulted by a post on an anonymous internet forum, unless of course there was some truth to the question... To be fair, some nerve was struck. You see pompous 'mightier than thou' windbags are annoying, especially the ones who are not capable to address the topic, but believe that if they mention the names of great thinkers, people will believe that they actually are erudite. So do you have something meaningful to add to this discussion or are only here to engage in mental masturbation in between...
It has been 25odd posts since I first stated: I believe that I've exhibited more than enough effort to this line of discussion...and there's no reason to simply repeat what I took the time to clearly delineate in the first.
Why do women believe that your sex is what entitles you to an opinion on the laws of abortion? A man has just as much right to fight for or against abortion as a woman has. If you want to extinguish the life that comes from you then go ahead.... Doesnt mean I don't KNOW that you snuffed out the life and didnt believe in the child or yourself.
If you are trying to say that abortion was not legal in the US at it's founding you are incorrect. It was made illegal for the safety of the woman around 1867. There was never any mention of the fetus or the potential child when it was made illegal. So what are you trying to say.
I don't see them as clashing. Both laws are focused on the woman. Roe Wade gives her full control of her body and the fetus. She has the right to ask for an abortion and receive one. That is one of her two choices. The second choice option that a woman has is to keep the fetus to full term and have a child. It is her choice. If she decides to continue the pregnancy and someone kills that fetus they have taken the choice from the woman and taken away what would have been a child in due time. Both laws are consistent with protection of the woman's rights. They both hold up her choice as the ultimate decision.
Which is inconsistent with every other homicode related law on the books, hence the clash. Why should a woman have the right to commit a homicide wantonly?
But a fetus is another body, not the woman's own. So neither the man or woman who created the child should be allowed to kill him or her at will.
She is not. She is having an abortion. Why are you so protective of a fetus? Why do you want to control a woman's right to her body? Do you think women should be barefoot and pregnant? Do you want all of these unwanted children on the welfare roles? Do you want the crime rates to go up? Do you want more homeless children walking around? My biggest concern and according to the title of this thread why do you have an opinion on what a women does with her body?
The fetus is housed in the woman's body. She has the control. Do you know Stalin was anti abortion? He wanted to use that issue to control women as well. It seems to me an issue of control and not common sense.
She is, an abortion is a homicide, clearly! Why do I have an opinion? Why does society concern itself with any homicide?
So? What difference does it make that he had one position on one issue right? That is where he and I differ. I want only to prevent premeditated cold blooded homicides.
What does the law call an abortion? You don't agree with your nations laws? Yes why do you have an opinion on abortion? Homicide is a crime so there is concern about it. Are you as concerned about the innocent civilians and children that the US aborted when they bombed Iraq? Or do you just want to decide who you think lives or dies?
I mentioned Stalin because he stopped abortion not to protect the fetus but as a control over women. That is how I see your effort here. It is about control of those women so they don't get to many ideas that tamper with the failing mans world. So you are against war, or do you justify that in some way?
