Pro-lifers please shoot this down

[alzan]

The law is wrong.

Rights are granted at time of creation. Rights can not be based on if we meet certain requirements.

Either all people are created equal and all entitled to equal rights, or nobody at anytime is entitled to equal rights.

Society can not say "if you meet these requirments, then and only then are you entitled to rights."

Get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court then and reverse the decision.

We live in an imperfect society. Deal with it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Now! Now! Check your Bible where it allows/commands parents to kill their disobedient child. And kill a favorite child to show your love for God. And on and on.

God's design? Over 50% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, this makes God the designer, the No. one abortionist.

You have a very serious lack of understanding when I comes to the Bible...but on the other hand that should have been expected!

 

[row]

Ah, so bad decisions by various Supreme Court makeups means other decisions by other Supreme Court makeups are also bad. Thanks for clearing that up.

comprehend much?

my point was you are a sheep, incapable of independent thought, who is willing to follow what ever the gubment tells you to. 😵

 

[alzan]

comprehend much?

my point was you are a sheep, incapable of independent thought, who is willing to follow what ever the gubment tells you to. 😵

My point is you post like an immature child, using insults only because you cannot discuss the topic.

 

[Texashiker]

We live in an imperfect society. Deal with it.

Deal with it, maybe.

Excuse it, absolutely not.

 

[alzan]

Deal with it, maybe.

Excuse it, absolutely not.

If we choose to live here then we have to deal with it. Most likely, nothing will happen in our lifetimes that will cause rape and incest to disappear, that will cause men and women to be more cautious when it comes to copulation, etc. Our advances in neonatal medicine may push back the definition of viability six months or so. The legal ramifications of Roe v. Wade will be with us for our lives and beyond.

The law doesn't need you or anyone else to excuse it. It's simply the best legal answer; because beyond Roe v. Wade, we all still have a right to privacy and a right to control our bodies.

 

[KB]

The law is wrong.

Rights are granted at time of creation. Rights can not be based on if we meet certain requirements.

Either all people are created equal and all entitled to equal rights, or nobody at anytime is entitled to equal rights.

Society can not say "if you meet these requirments, then and only then are you entitled to rights."

I am leaving religion out of this discussion.

Society says this all the time. If you aren't a criminal you can own a gun. If you aren't a criminal you can live in society. If you pay your taxes you are entitled to keep your property. If you register, then you can vote. Rights are often dependent on requirements.

 

[WelshBloke]

Rights are granted at time of creation. Rights can not be based on if we meet certain requirements.

So you're against age limit for drinking, joining the army, having sex, driving...

 

[Texashiker]

So you're against age limit for drinking, joining the army, having sex, driving...

Straw man.

The items you listed are nowhere even close to the unalienable right to life.

Society says this all the time. If you aren't a criminal you can own a gun. If you aren't a criminal you can live in society. If you pay your taxes you are entitled to keep your property. If you register, then you can vote. Rights are often dependent on requirements.

All of those are through due process.

The right to own a gun can only be taken away through due process of law.

Property can be taken away only through the due process of law.

 

[alzan]

Straw man.

The items you listed are nowhere even close to the unalienable right to life.

Pretty words which were written by men, at least some of whom considered women second-class citizens, if that, and wouldn't give them the right to vote.

The Declaration of Independence was merely a formal flip-off to King George; it does not setup the rules and regulations by which our branches of government operate.

 

[nehalem256]

Get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court then and reverse the decision.

We live in an imperfect society. Deal with it.

I wonder how many supporters of Roe v. Wade are butt-hurt over the SCOTUS's recent decision regarding contraception?😀

 

[nehalem256]

The fetus becomes a child when the mother decides to carry her parasitic growth to term.

Is it time to put up big slogans cause we has them to.

Her responsibility :sneaky:

 

[Texashiker]

The Declaration of Independence was merely a formal flip-off to King George; it does not setup the rules and regulations by which our branches of government operate.

The Declaration of Independence is an outline of basic human rights.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that all humans are created with.

Not rights that we are born with, not rights we are granted by the government. Those rights are endowed upon us at the time of our creation.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Her responsibility :sneaky:

While I lack sympathy over stupid decisions and agree responsibility must be taken to some degree...

What about in the case of involuntary conception (rape, and things of that nature) where the victim had no choice in said conception?

 

[nehalem256]

While I lack sympathy over stupid decisions and agree responsibility must be taken to some degree...

What about in the case of involuntary conception (rape, and things of that nature) where the victim had no choice in said conception?

That would seem to be explained by the first thing I quoted:

The fetus becomes a child when the mother decides to carry her parasitic growth to term.

So, even in the case of rape a woman is fully responsible for a child coming into being by not removing the involuntary parasitic growth from her body.

 

[Texashiker]

What about in the case of involuntary conception (rape, and things of that nature) where the victim had no choice in said conception?

Does is matter?

Are your rights based on circumstances?

 

[alzan]

I wonder how many supporters of Roe v. Wade are butt-hurt over the SCOTUS's recent decision regarding contraception?😀

I wonder if any of the five majority justices noticed the inherent inconsistency in the fact that while Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for four contraceptive methods for it's employees, HL's 401K plan with matching funds invests in companies that produce the four contraceptive methods.

I guess "deeply held religious beliefs" only matter some of the time and can be dismissed on a whim.

Edit: strike that, four majority justices, since Thomas just parrots Scalia

 

[alzan]

The Declaration of Independence is an outline of basic human rights.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that all humans are created with.

Not rights that we are born with, not rights we are granted by the government. Those rights are endowed upon us at the time of our creation.

From the Wiki article:

The Declaration of Independence is the usual name of a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. Instead they formed a new nation—the United States of America. John Adams was a leader in pushing for independence, which was unanimously approved on July 2. A committee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when Congress voted on independence. The term "Declaration of Independence" is not used in the document itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(United_States)

That was the D of I's primary purpose. The granting of rights was secondary only.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Does is matter?

Are your rights based on circumstances?

I find it quite relevant actually. (Assuming the above scenario) On one hand, an abortion would violate the rights of the unborn being. On the other hand, banning abortion violates the rights of the victim (considering the emotional impact, and the physical impact of pregnancy itself).

No matter what side you choose in this debate, someone's rights gets trampled, one being holds a higher importance than the other. A debate that may never have a right answer, so to speak. ()🙂

At what point a fetus is considered a human seems to be subject to (a fierce) debate however.

 

[WelshBloke]

Straw man.

The items you listed are nowhere even close to the unalienable right to life.

But that's not what you were arguing.

Now if you want to abandon your former argument and move to a new one that's fair enough but it would only be polite to inform the rest of us.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Everyone has a right to life.

No one has a right to occupy the body of an unwilling person.

No one has a right to inject an unwilling person with hormones and waste.

No person owes a duty to any other to endure those violations without explicit consent.

When a woman decides her guest is no longer welcome, she retains the right to exclude it from her premises.

It's actually pretty amusing how many of those knuckle-dragging conservatives are in favor of the castle doctrine but anti-abortion. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

 

[WelshBloke]

Everyone has a right to life.

That right is cogent on several conditions.

 

[nehalem256]

I wonder if any of the five majority justices noticed the inherent inconsistency in the fact that while Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for four contraceptive methods for it's employees, HL's 401K plan with matching funds invests in companies that produce the four contraceptive methods.

I guess "deeply held religious beliefs" only matter some of the time and can be dismissed on a whim.

Edit: strike that, four majority justices, since Thomas just parrots Scalia

So if you oppose murder you can't invest in a conglomerate that derives a small amount of revenue from selling guns?

Everyone has a right to life.

No one has a right to occupy the body of an unwilling person.

No one has a right to inject an unwilling person with hormones and waste.

No person owes a duty to any other to endure those violations without explicit consent.

When a woman decides her guest is no longer welcome, she retains the right to exclude it from her premises.

It's actually pretty amusing how many of those knuckle-dragging conservatives are in favor of the castle doctrine but anti-abortion. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

You can't invite someone into your house and then blast them away. Not even in Florida.

Also the SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you. As they allow prohibiting abortion after viability; and good luck getting a doctor to induce you when you are 6 months pregnant just because you don't feel like being pregnant anymore.

 

[child of wonder]

For me it all boils down to this: I don't care for the idea of abortions and particularly find late term abortions disgusting. But I have no idea when a fetus becomes a person and when it should have the same rights as anyone else. Since I can't establish that I have to default to the rights of the woman and what she does with her pregnancy is none of my business. It's too messy an issue to legislate anyway.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You can't invite someone into your house and then blast them away. Not even in Florida.

So? My next door neighbor had three rabbits.

So what?

Also the SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you. As they allow prohibiting abortion after viability; and good luck getting a doctor to induce you when you are 6 months pregnant just because you don't feel like being pregnant anymore.

Squatter's rights are not a new legal concept, although I'm quite confident you're ignorant of them (among so many other non-toaster-related facts).