John Roberts will get Bush's nomination for the Supreme Court. :)

Bye, bye, abortion, it was nice knowing you. :hi:

Don't think so - worst case scenario: even if the court reversed Roe v. Wade, it would just be kicked back to the states, and almost all the blue states would keep their abortion laws intact as is, given that the majority of the public supports them.

This will probably cause an efflux of women to blue states, right where they belong. :nice:

And all that's supposing that Roberts will survive the nomination (look how many it took to get Thomas in office), and that the court wants to hear direct challenges to Roe with Rehnquist still serving as chief justice.

Cite?

What kind of cite do you want? A Supreme Court decision wouldn't outlaw abortion - it would just eliminate the right that Blackmun created to an abortion under Roe.

That means the states would decide the matter independently, since it's not a federal issue reserved to the U.S. government in the Constitution.

Don't think so - worst case scenario: even if the court reversed Roe v. Wade, it would just be kicked back to the states, and almost all the blue states would keep their abortion laws intact as is, given that the majority of the public supports them.

This will probably cause an efflux of women to blue states, right where they belong. :nice:

And all that's supposing that Roberts will survive the nomination (look how many it took to get Thomas in office), and that the court wants to hear direct challenges to Roe with Rehnquist still serving as chief justice.

In all fairness, Roberts said he doesn't intend to overturn Roe v. Wade and I spoke more out of wishful thinking, although he is pro-life.

I don't think the Democrats have the political capital to attempt to scotch his nomination. They'll try, but it's not a good idea.

What kind of cite do you want? A Supreme Court decision wouldn't outlaw abortion - it would just eliminate the right that Blackmun created to an abortion under Roe.

That means the states would decide the matter independently, since it's not a federal issue reserved to the U.S. government in the Constitution.


I want a cite saying he's the choice...

Hes better than having Oconnor on the bench, but not who I was looking for. Bush could have done better. Somehow I knew he'd back down from a real fight.

Don't think so - worst case scenario: even if the court reversed Roe v. Wade, it would just be kicked back to the states, and almost all the blue states would keep their abortion laws intact as is, given that the majority of the public supports them.


You act like thats a good thing when abortion should be outlawed because it is an evil procedure which deprives a human of their life.


This will probably cause an efflux of women to blue states, right where they belong. :nice:


Yea, nasty women who want to kill their kids. :barf:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

We need someone that will uphold the constitution, not party lines

is he the guy?

You act like thats a good thing when abortion should be outlawed because it is an evil procedure which deprives a human of their life.

- Since I don't believe that, I think it is a good thing.

- Since I don't believe that, I think it is a good thing.

You can't not believe it, its fact, it causes a person who would exist if they weren't aborted to not exist. Would you like to have been aborted? Didn't think so. :nonono:

Irrelevant - many people wish they were never born, and that's not a valid criterion for consideration either.

That means the states would decide the matter independently, since it's not a federal issue reserved to the U.S. government in the Constitution.like medical marijuanna.
:|

Theoretically, marijuana is trafficked interstate, so that's how they managed to pull off that jurisdictional coup. :rolleyes:

voice vote and let's move on

Theoretically, marijuana is trafficked interstate, so that's how they managed to pull off that jurisdictional coup. :rolleyes:theoretically being the operative word.

Irrelevant - many people wish they were never born, and that's not a valid criterion for consideration either.

Wrong, relevant. Answer the question, stop dodging. Its a fact of science, we're not talking about opinions here. You abort a human fetus, you rob it of its life. Its pretty simply.

No, it's not relevant in the slightest, because the fact that something might become a person in the future doesn't mean it's one now.

Whether I'd have wanted someone to abort me or not is as irrelevant as the fact that some people wish they were never born. Neither is a criteria for determining public policy.

he's 50, but he has diabetes

I'm 45 and have diabetes, and I'm more than qualified to serve :nice:

John Roberts will get Bush's nomination for the Supreme Court. :)

Bye, bye, abortion, it was nice knowing you. :hi:
Not according to the BBC World Service, which I am listening to (and have been all day). Roberts said, apparently, that Roe v Wade was established law, and he has no intention of doing anything to change that.

BTW, not all people would be sad to see an end to freely available and anarchistic access to induced abortion.

"Anarchistic?" :rolleyes:

Being a states-rights conservative ... even if R v W is over ruled federally ... the states will take over abortion rights

He does not seem like a radical-right ... but his record is thin ... almost nothing to read about ... I did find he upheld the case against a 12 yr old girl who was arrested and detained for eating french fries on a muni train ... I feel SO much safer now

"Anarchistic?" :rolleyes:
The word I wanted was escaping me, but what I meant was that AFAIK, there are no laws in the USA restricting access to abortion. I could be wrong about that... but it is Big Business in the USA, a billion-dollar industry, so no way are the Republicans going to get rid of it - too much profit.

Anyone have a list of the politicians who will be interogating Roberts?

The ultra-liberal radicals Shuma, Turban, Kennedy and Leahy are so pathetically predictable, they have indicated they will do their best to continue their effort to sabatoge the US government. I wonder what questions they have planned?

Being a states-rights conservative ... even if R v W is over ruled federally ... the states will take over abortion rights

- At least SOME will. :eek3:

Eh? Who cares? They would still face federal charges.

The word I wanted was escaping me, but what I meant was that AFAIK, there are no laws in the USA restricting access to abortion. I could be wrong about that... but it is Big Business in the USA, a billion-dollar industry, so no way are the Republicans going to get rid of it - too much profit.

(Emphasis mine)

You're not very familiar with American politics are you? As a Republican I find that statement very offensive. Methinks you know nothing of which you speak.

I'm done as I would rather not derail this thread.

Eh? Who cares? They would still face federal charges.
- Assuming you could get federal LAWS passed about an in-state matter, which isn't happening.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

We need someone that will uphold the constitution, not party lines

is he the guy?

"During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/scotus.main/index.html

I doubt it. :|

No, it's not relevant in the slightest, because the fact that something might become a person in the future doesn't mean it's one now.


It's not *something*- it's a fetus or an embryo. They very predictably turn into full blown human beings... Unlike, say, a flower, which, as far as I know, has never turned into a human being.

Regarding fully developed people, by the way- Is not infancy a stage of development? Is not childhood, adolescence, adulthood, seniority? What is a fully developed human being, philosophically? Is one stage of development less valuable because it takes place within the confines of a womb? Of course it is not viable on it's own, but then at what stage of life are any of us completely viable on our own? Philosophically speaking, of course...


The ultra-liberal radicals Shuma, Turban, Kennedy and Leahy are so pathetically predictable, they have indicated they will do their best to continue their effort to sabatoge the US government. I wonder what questions they have planned?


Actually, I was listening to Shumer (I find it a bit obnoxious to play the childish nickname game myself) the other day on C-SPAN radio and he seemed to have some very good, relevant questions planned for the nominee.

I truly hope this doesn't breakdown into partisan bickering. I also hope that honest, relevant questions do not get derided as such. I'm pretty sure that's too much to ask for these days...

"During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/scotus.main/index.html

I doubt it. :|


lol, nope, sure doesn't look that way

:nonono:

1. I would be very surprised if Bush isnt using Roberts in some way to get at Abortion. If this is his nomination, and if indeed Robets is as un-critical of abortion as all things iv heard so far have indicated, this is perhaps the greatest '**** you' to the people who put a president in office ever. Perhaps even more so then his own father's tax lines. But I get the strong feeling there's no way Bush doesnt have some plan going on...

2. Dont worry about it. He can still roll back plenty of human rights, environmental protection acts, corporate watch dog programs, etc, even if Abortion doesnt get changed...

What is this thread about again? I seem to have lost my way. ;)

Partylines determine the thumbs-up or thumbs-down on any nominee anymore.

I say, if he's likely to legislate from the bench, then he's not our man. If he's strict in his interpretation of the constitution, then he IS our man. Let's find out before we blast away at each other, shall we? lol

The word I wanted was escaping me, but what I meant was that AFAIK, there are no laws in the USA restricting access to abortion. I could be wrong about that... but it is Big Business in the USA, a billion-dollar industry, so no way are the Republicans going to get rid of it - too much profit.

^ This is absolutely beyond vile.

Your information sources (if you have any) are very faulty.

What is this thread about again? I seem to have lost my way. ;)

Partylines determine the thumbs-up or thumbs-down on any nominee anymore.

I say, if he's likely to legislate from the bench, then he's not our man. If he's strict in his interpretation of the constitution, then he IS our man. Let's find out before we blast away at each other, shall we? lol

Agreed. Let him speak for himself and then we can all decide if we support him.

Given the recent history of the SCOTUS, I suspect (and hope) he will turn out to be a strict Constitutionalist - but I'd like to have that suspicion confirmed.

He's not a constructionist, no.

He's not a constructionist, no.

I don't know enough about him to judge one way or another. I need to do some research.

AFAIK, none of his decisions have presumed strict originalism a la Scalia or Hugo Black.

AFAIK, none of his decisions have presumed strict originalism a la Scalia or Hugo Black.

Again, I don't know enough about him yet. I also don't think that past decisions are a perfect predictor of SC opinions. The appointment for life aspect at the pinnacle of the U.S. judiciary gives SC members a freedom combined with end of the road responsibility that lower level judges do not experience.

Strict constructionism isn't really a philosophy that judges suddenly pick up late in their careers.

Strict constructionism isn't really a philosophy that judges suddenly pick up late in their careers.


You mean one cannot become a Born Again Constructionist?

Considering the aspect of trying to apply the intent of the founders in interpreting the Consistitution, I find the term a bit subjective and difficult to prove. There is too much disagreement over intent.

Strict constructionism isn't really a philosophy that judges suddenly pick up late in their careers.

Yeah, people don't evolve. lol

You mean one cannot become a Born Again Constructionist?
- You can, but typically judges don't do so late in their careers on the federal bench

Considering the aspect of trying to apply the intent of the founders in interpreting the Consistitution, I find the term a bit subjective and difficult to prove. There is too much disagreement over intent.
- Also, the framers themselves didn't believe that original intent was supposed to be the sole criteria for constitutional intepretation themselves.

Yeah, people don't evolve. lol
- People do, but I don't know of any judge in history that suddenly adopted originalism after being appointed to the federal level.

In order for a case to be considered by the Supreme Court, it should (but doesn't always) have to prove relevance to the entire country. Proving a case against Roe v. Wade as relevant to the entire nation will be an ordeal that most Justices probably won't want to tackle.

I suspect that's also what happened with that 12 y.o. girl. If it doesn't apply to the nation as a whole, the Supreme Court shouldn't have to hear it.

Here's a site with some more background info on Roberts:

http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/roberts.htm

I like that he represented the 19 states who sued Microsoft in the antitrust case.

Contrary to claims that Roberts is in the pocket of "big business," in his capacity as a partner with Hogan & Hartson, he represented the 19 states that joined the federal government in suing Microsoft.


I don't like that he tried to restrict voting rights in Hawaii to native Hawaiians only.

In a case concerning the Fifteenth Amendment, Roberts unsuccessfully argued that Hawaii could limit voters to only "Native Hawaiians" in the election of nine trustees that administer programs specifically for "Native Hawaiians." Robert’s argument was twofold.

First, the provision was no different than any other attempts by Congress and the states to honor the special obligation to America’s other native peoples. Second, the provision "does not violate the Fifteenth Amendment--and is not subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth [Amendment]--because it does not draw any distinction ‘on account of race.’" The Court found otherwise and held that limiting the vote to only "Native Hawaiians" violated the Fifteenth Amendment.


Overall, he seems like a good guy, though.

Conclusion:

Mr. Roberts is one of the most highly qualified and well-credentialed attorneys in America today. His breadth and depth of experience unquestionably qualify him for his appointment to the D.C. Circuit. His view that the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly and generally not used as a tool for righting social wrongs indicates a sound philosophy of judicial restraint.

(Emphasis mine)

You're not very familiar with American politics are you? As a Republican I find that statement very offensive. Methinks you know nothing of which you speak.

I'm done as I would rather not derail this thread.
What I said, I said because it is well-known that the Republicans (like the National party here) are the party of business. That being said, I am sure there are Republicans who are not pro-abortion.

Actually, large numbers of Republicans are anti-choice, including George W. Bush.

Actually, large numbers of Republicans are anti-choice, including George W. Bush.
Anti-choice is a very loaded word. It implies that pro-abortion people are just making a morally neutral decision, like Pepsi over Coke! Having an abortion, advocating it, or profiting from it can never be morally neutral.

No, personally, I think "pro-life" is the loaded term.

It also implies that those of us who do not believe that it is the government's right to restrict the legality or availability of abortion are therefore anti-life. This not only is erroneous thinking, but oftentimes based in the same blind bigotry that led to such wonderful governmental policies as restricting voting rights to white male landowners.

It also implies that those of us who do not believe that it is the government's right to restrict the legality or availability of abortion are therefore anti-life. This not only is erroneous thinking, but oftentimes based in the same blind bigotry that led to such wonderful governmental policies as restricting voting rights to white male landowners.

:nice: It stirs up fear, which leads to darkness.

It also implies that those of us who do not believe that it is the government's right to restrict the legality or availability of abortion are therefore anti-life.


You support murder, I would call that pretty anti-life. So sucking the brains out of a helpless baby is not "anti-life?" Makes sense to me. :nonono:


This not only is erroneous thinking, but oftentimes based in the same blind bigotry that led to such wonderful governmental policies as restricting voting rights to white male landowners.

False analogy. The goverment has every right to outlaw the killing of other human life.

No, personally, I think "pro-life" is the loaded term.

And "pro-choice" isn't? :rolleyes:

Actually, large numbers of Republicans are anti-choice, including George W. Bush.

No, personally, I think "pro-life" is the loaded term.

lol, just noticed this. :nonono:

Interesting quote from O'Connor.

"He(Roberts) has a brilliant legal mind"

"He's great in every possible way.... except he is not a woman."

"He's great in every possible way.... except he is not a woman."

:p :p :p

You support murder, I would call that pretty anti-life. So sucking the brains out of a helpless baby is not "anti-life?" Makes sense to me. :nonono:



:rolleyes: For someone who has a lot to say about abortion, you describe it like a bad movie - sucking the brains out? Yeah, that's exactly how it works... :rolleyes:

You don't hang out outside clinics, do you?? :|

And "pro-choice" isn't? :rolleyes:
- Not in my opinion, no. I'm certainly not advocating that women have abortions for no reason.

I favor enabling their right of choice, hence "pro-choice."

^ Thank you CP!

This IS still America for the time being, right?

Until the neo-Contras get ahold of it. :rolleyes:

As long as you're determined to derail this thread into an abortion debate, I'd like to repond to this post:

You can't not believe it, its fact, it causes a person who would exist if they weren't aborted to not exist. Would you like to have been aborted? Didn't think so. :nonono:

So, you're saying that any time you take action to prevent the birth of a person, you're a murderer. If I leave two horny teenagers in a room, they will naturally become a family of three. If I go into the room and stop them from having sex, I am preventing the creation of their future child. Does that make me a murderer?

So, you're saying that any time you take action to prevent the birth of a person, you're a murderer. If I leave two horny teenagers in a room, they will naturally become a family of three. If I go into the room and stop them from having sex, I am preventing the creation of their future child. Does that make me a murderer?


Elle: Although Mr. Huntington makes an excellent point, I have to wonder if the defendant kept a thorough record of each sperm emission made throughout his entire life.

Professor Donovan: Why do you ask?

Elle: Well, unless the defendant attempted to contact every single one-night-stand to determine if a child resulted in those unions - then he has not parental claim whatsoever over this child. Why this sperm? Why now? For that matter, all masturbatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg could be termed reckless abandonment.

It's not like they don'y know what causes it . No excuse for un-wanted pregnantcies anymore . They should both be jailed and made to take care of the kid. To hell with all this irresposibility and murder of babies and fullterms . parents of kids under 16 should be fined and thrown in jail too.

It's not like they don'y know what causes it . No excuse for un-wanted pregnantcies anymore . They should both be jailed and made to take care of the kid. To hell with all this irresposibility and murder of babies and fullterms . parents of kids under 16 should be fined and thrown in jail too.

Jailed :eek7:

Wow - with your kind of thinking, we are going to be paying a pretty penny in prison taxes.

You serioulsy need to get your head out of the sand and say Hi - just a quick breather to see if it helps? :confused:

:rolleyes: For someone who has a lot to say about abortion, you describe it like a bad movie - sucking the brains out? Yeah, that's exactly how it works... :rolleyes:

Actually, on this one issue I agree with Contra: the partial birth abortion procedure is as macabre as he makes it sound:

**Caution**
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

I'm against wanton abortions as a means of birth control by irresponsible individuals but I also know that in the real world there are situations where it is best for all concerned to end a pregnancy.

But PBAs are just too much and should be outlawed unless the woman's life is endangered and only then...

- Not in my opinion, no. I'm certainly not advocating that women have abortions for no reason.

I favor enabling their right of choice, hence "pro-choice."
It's a "choice" very few women actually want - studies show men are significantly more likely to be pro-abortion than women.

It's as I said, not a morally neutral choice, like soft drink or ice cream. It's a "choice" that involves killing other human beings. :nonono:

Elle: Although Mr. Huntington makes an excellent point, I have to wonder if the defendant kept a thorough record of each sperm emission made throughout his entire life.

Professor Donovan: Why do you ask?

Elle: Well, unless the defendant attempted to contact every single one-night-stand to determine if a child resulted in those unions - then he has not parental claim whatsoever over this child. Why this sperm? Why now? For that matter, all masturbatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg could be termed reckless abandonment.
On a British site I was on, the pro-abortion people all started chanting "every sperm is sacred" (from Monty Python) as an attempt to "muddy the waters"
and pretend that all pro-life people think that contraception is morally equivalent to abortion. News flash - we don't all think that!

So, that quote (from a movie?) is ireelevant and silly. Sorry...

It's a "choice" very few women actually want - studies show men are significantly more likely to be pro-abortion than women.
- The term "pro-abortion" is meaningless bull****, as virtually no one is for women having abortions they don't want or need.

As far as pro-choice goes, however, that's a completely mistaken statement in the context of the United States, as public opinion polls show.

It's as I said, not a morally neutral choice, like soft drink or ice cream.
- In your personal assessment of morality, but that's irrelevant: the putative moral status of the choice in no way changes the fact that it's a choice.

It's a "choice" that involves killing other human beings. :nonono:
- I disagree, as I don't believe a fetus is a person.

On a British site I was on, the pro-abortion people all started chanting "every sperm is sacred" (from Monty Python) as an attempt to "muddy the waters"
and pretend that all pro-life people think that contraception is morally equivalent to abortion. News flash - we don't all think that!

So, that quote (from a movie?) is ireelevant and silly. Sorry...

:rolleyes:

Boring.

:rolleyes:

Boring.
Very mature, I must say, Boedicca! Somehow I expected better of you.

It's a "choice" very few women actually want - studies show men are significantly more likely to be pro-abortion than women.


Just because you don't want to do something, that doesn't give you a right to tell others they can't do it.

Just because you don't want to do something, that doesn't give you a right to tell others they can't do it.


Actually, there are quite a few examples of not wanting to do something and having the right to tell others they can't do it:

- Rape
- Murder
- Child Molestation
- Assault
- Robbery
- Theft
- Fraud

I'm sure you can think of more. Freedom does not mean one can engage in a rampage of actions which harm others.

Actually, there are quite a few examples of not wanting to do something and having the right to tell others they can't do it:

- Rape
- Murder
- Child Molestation
- Assault
- Robbery
- Theft
- Fraud


1st off, everything on that list happily concerns Consent, as do almost all crimes, as you absolutly always ignore in gay argument and abortion debates.

Sorry, but I think that a women has more right to say no to the baby, just as she has the right to say no to a man making advances. Sometimes what one person wants has to be voided out in the name of the person with the right, which Id like to think is the fully developed human being.

1st off, everything on that list happily concerns Consent, as do almost all crimes, as you absolutly always ignore in gay argument and abortion debates.

Sorry, but I think that a women has more right to say no to the baby, just as she has the right to say no to a man making advances. Sometimes what one person wants has to be voided out in the name of the person with the right, which Id like to think is the fully developed human being.

I support gay rights - so don't throw that into the mix.

Abortion is a grey area. Although I dislike the concept, I support a woman's right to a first trimester abortion. Women have long used natural herbs to control reproduction, including early term abortions. As a society, it would be healthier to get back to herbal basics and get rid of the reliance upon a violent surgical procedure.

Late term abortions, however, cross the line. Once a fetus has developed brain functions, abortion IS murder. The inability of The Left and The Feminist Movement to make a developmental distinction is what will roll back abortion rights, if we get to that point.

Strange but there's a point on which we can agree, Bo. :nice:

Strange but there's a point on which we can agree, Bo. :nice:

Kumbaya!

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...

Abortion is a grey area. Although I dislike the concept, I support a woman's right to a first trimester abortion. Women have long used natural herbs to control reproduction, including early term abortions.


First, there is no right; you support first trimester abortion. Second, people have been going around and smashing each other's skulls in for much longer than women have gulping down poison in hopes of killing off a fetus before the kill themselves. I think we need to make that a right, hmm?

1st off, everything on that list happily concerns Consent, as do almost all crimes, as you absolutly always ignore in gay argument and abortion debates.

Sorry, but I think that a women has more right to say no to the baby, just as she has the right to say no to a man making advances. Sometimes what one person wants has to be voided out in the name of the person with the right, which Id like to think is the fully developed human being.

I think we should start killing off low IQ persons, and turning over their assets to those with superior intelligence. Regarding cohabitation of earth, I think intelligent persons should have the right to say no to low IQ persons.

First, there is no right; you support first trimester abortion.
- Roe v. Wade established a right to a first trimester abortion.

Second, people have been going around and smashing each other's skulls in for much longer than women have gulping down poison in hopes of killing off a fetus before the kill themselves. I think we need to make that a right, hmm?
- Only if you believe a non-cognizant fetus is equivalent to an person that's actually been born from the instant of conception, and not if you don't.

- Roe v. Wade established a right to a first trimester abortion.


Just because something is not against the law it does not make it a right, skipper.


- Only if you believe a non-cognizant fetus is equivalent to an person that's actually been born from the instant of conception, and not if you don't.

I used to think the same, but I've seen far too many seemingly cognizant persons that could pass for swamp slime.

Just because something is not against the law it does not make it a right, skipper
- True, but that's not what Blackmun stated in Roe: in his decision, he positively established that abortion is in fact a woman's privacy right (prior to viability).

I used to think the same, but I've seen far too many seemingly cognizant persons that could pass for swamp slime.
- Irrelevant to the question of their personhood vs. a non-cognizant fetus.

- True, but that's not what Blackmun stated in Roe: in his decision, he positively established that abortion is in fact a woman's privacy right (prior to viability).

Weasel all you want, it's not a right.


- Irrelevant to the question of their personhood vs. a non-cognizant fetus.

No, it's not. You see, I can't abort these morons. It's a crime for me to do so. I should be able to abort these idiots that pollute my environment, use up my resources, dumb down my schools,and forever perpetuate their defunct genes. Chances are, any given baby born will smarter than one of these aforementioned crayon eaters. Give me the gun and the dice, baby.

Weasel all you want, it's not a right.
- Nope, as the Supreme Court ruled, it's a privacy right.

The ruling didn't just say that it couldn't be made illegal, it specifically stated that it's a right.

The high court takes precedence over your opinion.

No, it's not. You see, I can't abort these morons. It's a crime for me to do so. I should be able to abort these idiots that pollute my environment, use up my resources, dumb down my schools,and forever perpetuate their defunct genes. Chances are, any given baby born will smarter than one of these aforementioned crayon eaters. Give me the gun and the dice, baby.
- Doesn't matter what it WILL be in the future - it matters what it is right now.

Right is something specifically found within the Bill of Rights. Whether or not the Supreme court felt RvsW was a matter of privacy rights does not change that. The supreme court does not set forth the rights with which the country exists. As far was we are concerned here, all they do is interpret the construction on a CASE BY CASE basis. They set precedents, which is nothing more than to suggest to the people that "if you bring a case concerning X, we will summarily conclude Y". While this gives the impression of a legislated right, it is not one.

Right is something specifically found within the Bill of Rights. Whether or not the Supreme court felt RvsW was a matter of privacy rights does not change that. The supreme court does not set forth the rights with which the country exists. As far was we are concerned here, all they do is interpret the construction on a CASE BY CASE basis. They set precedents, which is nothing more than to suggest to the people that "if you bring a case concerning X, we will summarily conclude Y". While this gives the impression of a legislated right, it is not one.
- That's simply false: read the 9th Amendment - nonenumerated rights exist, and it falls upon the high court, as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, to determine their scope, as they did in Griswald v. Connecticut with the right to privacy, or Loving v. Virginia with the right to marriage.

Nonenumerated rights are just as much rights as enumerated ones, and the court's ruling in Roe established that abortion is a privacy right within the Constitution. The end.

- That's simply false: read the 9th Amendment - nonenumerated rights exist, and it falls upon the high court, as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, to determine their scope, as they did in Griswald v. Connecticut with the right to privacy, or Loving v. Virginia with the right to marriage.

Nonenumerated rights are just as much rights as enumerated ones, and the court's ruling in Roe established that abortion is a privacy right within the Constitution. The end.

Not quite. Er, not at all, rather. The "nonumerated" rights which you speak of are merely simple rights that there was no compelling reason to specifically legislate. For instance, there is no need to legislate a right to live off of rocky road ice cream. If abortion was so flippant of an issue,they would not have set a framework within which certain aspects are deemed illegal, such as third trimester/partial birth abortions. It's a "common sense" amendment, if you will, and it has nothing to do with the supposed "right" to abortion..

Furthermore, concerning abortion and its serious nature, one would actually have to argue that the rights of the unborn child would be the ones most likely protected under the 9th, not the ones of the mother. However, this was never fretted over, as abortion was "illegal." Clearly the issue is not so innocuous to be swept under the rug by the 9th. The common sense amendment is just that, common sense. Now, would common sense tell you something that for ~ 200 years was deemed illegal suddenly becamea right that was so obvious that it did not require any legislation?

Not quite. Er, not at all, rather. The "nonumerated" rights which you speak of are merely simple rights that there was no compelling reason to specifically legislate. For instance, there is no need to legislate a right to live off of rocky road ice cream. If abortion was so flippant of an issue,they would not have set a framework within which certain aspects are deemed illegal, such as third trimester/partial birth abortions. It's a "common sense" amendment, if you will, and it has nothing to do with the supposed "right" to abortion..
- Sorry, but this is the weakest argument imaginable: the Constitution does NOT distinguish between rights - it specifically states that Americans have rights other than those contained in the document itself.

When the Supreme Court establishes a non-enumerated right like privacy, it's just as much a right as any enumerated one. It's has NOTHING to do with non-enumerated rights being less "important."

And the simple point that the right recognized by the court of a woman to a first trimester abortion has a limitation - viability - does NOT make abortion less of a "right," any more than the fact that you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater means freedom of speech isn't a "right."

The court still stipulated a right to 1st trimester abortions n Roe, so, as long as its the law of the land, women have an actual fundamental right to first trimester abortions as long as Roe stands.

Furthermore, concerning abortion and its serious nature, one would actually have to argue that the rights of the unborn child would be the ones most likely protected under the 9th, not the ones of the mother.
- Not according to the SCOTUS, because the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to pre-viable fetii, in their view, as non-persons.

However, this was never fretted over, as abortion was "illegal." Clearly the issue is not so innocuous to be swept under the rug by the 9th. The common sense amendment is just that, common sense. Now, would common sense tell you something that for ~ 200 years was deemed illegal suddenly becamea right that was so obvious that it did not require any legislation?
- Because this is absolutely untrue - 1st trimester abortion was NOT illegal for 200 years.

At the time of the signing of the Constitution, abortion was perfectly legal until the moment of the "first quickening" - the first time the fetus kicks in the womb - following the British Common Law.

The very first laws making abortion illegal during the first trimester weren't signed until the Civil War.

Since the very first case the SCOTUS heard on abortion was Roe, the fact state laws were created against abortion a hundred years earlier is irrelevant - the court had never ruled that anti-abortion laws were constitutional before.

- Sorry, but this is the weakest argument imaginable: the Constitution does NOT distinguish between rights - it specifically states that Americans have rights other than those contained in the document itself.

When the Supreme Court establishes a non-enumerated right like privacy, it's just as much a right as any enumerated one. It's has NOTHING to do with non-enumerated rights being less "important."

And the simple point that the right recognized by the court of a woman to a first trimester abortion has a limitation - viability - does NOT make abortion less of a "right," any more than the fact that you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater means freedom of speech isn't a "right."

The court still stipulated a right to 1st trimester abortions n Roe, so, as long as its the law of the land, women have an actual fundamental right to first trimester abortions as long as Roe stands.

Sorry bud, but thats wrong. The right to life trumps the right to privacy. Abortion is illegal because murder is illegal- roe v. wade is illegitimate. It violates the most basic law- the right to life- and that right is violated by abortion because it stops an pre-conceived and genetically unique individual already created from living out their life. Just because the court decides it doesn't make it right or legal. What if the court made owning a slave a right? Rights are concepts set in stone, they are not arbitrary. Any one who has an abortion should be given 25 years to life for one, life for more than one, and the death penalty for several. Anyone perfoming them should get the death penalty.

Roberts will get in, and if he manages to overturn Roe v. Wade then at least one good thing will have come out of Bush's eight years on the throne.

Sorry bud, but thats wrong. The right to life trumps the right to privacy. Abortion is illegal because murder is illegal- roe v. wade is illegitimate. It violates the most basic law- the right to life- and that right is violated by abortion because it stops an pre-conceived and genetically unique individual already created from living out their life. Just because the court decides it doesn't make it right or legal. What if the court made owning a slave a right? Rights are concepts set in stone, they are not arbitrary. Any one who has an abortion should be given 25 years to life for one, life for more than one, and the death penalty for several. Anyone perfoming them should get the death penalty.
Sorry, bud, but that's wrong. That's true, but your application to those deemed nonpersons, such as a nonviable object, such as a human in its developmental stages in the womb, are not murdered for they cannot be murdered. Sorry. But I like your position (the right to life is all-important, so let's kill those who break it). It adds amusement to your post on top of your post's already incorrect and inaccurate argument.

A fetus is a human being- killing one is immoral, period.

Sorry bud, but thats wrong. The right to life trumps the right to privacy. Abortion is illegal because murder is illegal- roe v. wade is illegitimate. It violates the most basic law- the right to life- and that right is violated by abortion because it stops an pre-conceived and genetically unique individual already created from living out their life. Just because the court decides it doesn't make it right or legal. What if the court made owning a slave a right? Rights are concepts set in stone, they are not arbitrary. Any one who has an abortion should be given 25 years to life for one, life for more than one, and the death penalty for several. Anyone perfoming them should get the death penalty.
- Sorry, bud, but your premise is mistaken - there IS no recognized "right to life," and the fact that you believe something doesn't trump the court's authority.

- Sorry, bud, but your premise is mistaken - there IS no recognized "right to life,"

Really? So it would be ok for someone to shoot and kill you? (since there is no right to life, as you said.)

Yes. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about privacy, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I didn't hear him mention anything about a "right to life" there, did you?

lol... even if that was true, I'm just amazed that anyone would be supportive of 'no right to life.' :scratch:

I was kidding. I'm pretty sure one of those old guys in wigs mentioned something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being on the order of 'inalienable rights' or some such....

Of course now CP will say that since the quote is from the Declaration of Independence and not the Bill of Rights, it's not indicative of a legal 'right'. So in other words, people in this country don't really have a legally-defined right to live.

At which point I will laugh and stop wondering how Republicans managed to bamboozle the majority of Americans into voting for their party.

I was kidding. I'm pretty sure one of those old guys in wigs mentioned something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being on the order of 'inalienable rights' or some such....

Of course now CP will say that since the quote is from the Declaration of Independence and not the Bill of Rights, it's not indicative of a legal 'right'. So in other words, people in this country don't really have a legally-defined right to live.

At which point I will laugh and stop wondering how Republicans managed to bamboozle the majority of Americans into voting for their party.

I knew you were. And I was thinking CP would say the same thing... "That's in the declaration of independence, so it doesn't matter." lol!

Which is why I said, I just can't understand why anyone would be supportive of life not being a basic human right.

I was kidding. I'm pretty sure one of those old guys in wigs mentioned something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" being on the order of 'inalienable rights' or some such....



These are the tihings thought to be coverd by the 9th.

- Sorry, but this is the weakest argument imaginable: the Constitution does NOT distinguish between rights - it specifically states that Americans have rights other than those contained in the document itself.

The rights the 9th were referring to were non-issues. No one thought that they would ever pass a law stating you could not get dreadlocks, wear a sock over your head, or post pointless crap on the Internet. Additionally, no one in their right mind thought the BoR needed to specifically outline these nigh infinite amount of "rights."The fact that abortion had been legislated in EVERY STATE showed that this did not meet that specific criterion. As a matter of fact, that was has been considered the Madison litmus test whether something can be ascribed to the 9th.

Such a broad interpretation of the 9th, where nothing really matter as to what could be considered the 9th, would mean that there is no point in any other branch of the government except for the Judicial.

In short:

It does not fall under the 9th.
The supreme court can deem it is LEGAL as per privacy rights.
The supreme court cannot deem anything a right.

I knew you were. And I was thinking CP would say the same thing... "That's in the declaration of independence, so it doesn't matter." lol!
- It doesn't, because the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document, and was never ratified by the people.

Which is why I said, I just can't understand why anyone would be supportive of life not being a basic human right.
- It is, for actual and not potential people.

The rights the 9th were referring to were non-issues. No one thought that they would ever pass a law stating you could not get dreadlocks, wear a sock over your head, or post pointless crap on the Internet. Additionally, no one in their right mind thought the BoR needed to specifically outline these nigh infinite amount of "rights."
- Fallacy of originalism: the framers didn't believe that their original intent was supposed to be the crux of all subsequent interpretation of the charter, as Madison said many times.

The meaning of the 9th Amendment was to be determined by the courts with rulings and future amendments by the Congress, like all other constitutional interpretations.

The fact that abortion had been legislated in EVERY STATE showed that this did not meet that specific criterion. As a matter of fact, that was has been considered the Madison litmus test whether something can be ascribed to the 9th.
- Madison did NOT believe that the STATES through their legislatures defined what the federal Constitution's conception of rights were - if that were true there would have been no need for a Bill of Rights in the first place.

Such a broad interpretation of the 9th, where nothing really matter as to what could be considered the 9th, would mean that there is no point in any other branch of the government except for the Judicial.
- Also false - rights are determined on the basis of amendments by the Congress and rulings by the courts.

In short:

It does not fall under the 9th.
The supreme court can deem it is LEGAL as per privacy rights.
The supreme court cannot deem anything a right.
- Bunk: the Supreme Court has the power to deem anything it wishes to a "right," if it finds it to be a penumbra of more basic rights outlined by the Constitution, or considers it to be a basic human right like marriage.

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, and holds that authority whether you like it or not. If it says it falls under the 9th, it falls under the 9th. End of discussion.

So, in short, the Supreme Court stated that abortion was a fundamental right, hence it is one, period.

- Sorry, bud, but your premise is mistaken - there IS no recognized "right to life," and the fact that you believe something doesn't trump the court's authority.

LOL! So because CowPunk says so, we can go around killing anyone we want cause there is no such thing as the right to live. :nonono:

- It is, for actual and not potential people.

A fetus IS an actual person. A potenial is someone who might exist, but does not have a physical body, a fetus DOES. A fetus IS a human, its not a rock or an ape or a cell, its a living growing human in the early stages of development. It IS an actual, its not a conceot, or a thought or a maybe, it exists.

LOL! So because CowPunk says so, we can go around killing anyone we want cause there is no such thing as the right to live. :nonono:
- Uh, DUH - Congress saw fit to make murder a crime, so, no. :rolleyes:

I knew you were. And I was thinking CP would say the same thing... "That's in the declaration of independence, so it doesn't matter." lol!


It matters. But no more then any political speech. Do we take everything a politician says as fact of the way our Govt. operates? If a Democrat says in a speech that women have the right to abortion, does that ratify itself because a politican says it? Nay... The Decleration of Independance is a good little work of words, and a good representation of our views in regards to the empire opressing us, but is in no way shape or form grounds to base our laws on. Indeed, that is why they went ahead and did that silly writing of our constitution thing. Instead of just basing laws on the decleration.

OH, jebus chripes, kid. Enough with the circular logic. So much ignorance. You show me where the Supreme Court is granted the power to create rights, please.

I believe I've thoroughly debunked your assertion of abortion being considered as one of the ~infinite 9ths.


There is nothing more to say here that hasn't been said.

A fetus IS an actual person. A potenial is someone who might exist, but does not have a physical body, a fetus DOES.
- No, personhood has nothing to with a body, but cognizance, which is why the brain-dead are not "persons."

A fetus IS a human, its not a rock or an ape or a cell, its a living growing human in the early stages of development. It IS an actual, its not a conceot, or a thought or a maybe, it exists.
- Nope, it's a no more an actual human being with cognizance than a rock is. A person is not their body. It's their consciousness.

OH, jebus chripes, kid. Enough with the circular logic. So much ignorance. You show me where the Supreme Court is granted the power to create rights, please.
- Article III, which invests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court of the United States, and the 9th Amendment which asserts that rights of American citizens aren't limited to those in the charter.

Since rights aren't an executive privilege in the US, nor can the legislature establish rights OUTSIDE the charter, since its powers are limited to legislation, that leaves the matter falling squarely on the judiciary.

I believe I've thoroughly debunked your assertion of abortion being considered as one of the ~infinite 9ths.
- You believe it, but, as always, you're wrong. The instant the SCOTUS ruled it was a fundamental right, it automatically became one.

And, of course, the fact that rights aren't limited to those textually established in the Constitution doesn't in any way imply that rights are "infinite."

- Article III, which invests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court of the United States, and the 9th Amendment which asserts that rights of American citizens aren't limited to those in the charter.

Since rights aren't an executive privilege in the US, nor can the legislature establish rights OUTSIDE the charter, since its powers are limited to legislation, that leaves the matter falling squarely on the judiciary.

Huh? You clearly have zero understanding of our government. Even 3rd graders have a better understanding of the branches than you do. LOL.

The supreme court creates rights! Wow. Who da thunk it?


- You believe it, but, as always, you're wrong. The instant the SCOTUS ruled it was a fundamental right, it automatically became one.

The Supreme Court can only interpret on a case by case basis. They do not establish rights; they meely interpret the legislation.


And, of course, the fact that rights aren't limited to those textually established in the Constitution doesn't in any way imply that rights are "infinite."

They are infinite. I have a right to eat cocoa puffs while repeating the number one over and over, I have a right to eat cocoapuffs while repeating the number two over and over, I have a right to eat cocoapuffs while repeating the number three over and over...

Huh? You clearly have zero understanding of our government. Even 3rd graders have a better understanding of the branches than you do. LOL.
- As usual, ad hominems substitute for arguments.

The supreme court creates rights! Wow. Who da thunk it?
- The state doesn't "create" rights in our system of government, Cubby: it RECOGNIZES them.

If you recall, the framers believed that rights were created by God.

The Supreme Court can only interpret on a case by case basis. They do not establish rights; they meely interpret the legislation.
- And it falls on them to determine what the Constitution "means," and they create case law by doing so.

If their interpretation is that privacy is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, then privacy is recognized by the US government as a right.
When Blackmun ruled that a first trimester abortion is a fundamental right in Roe, that right was also recognized as such.

Therefore, the states can't prosecute women for having an abortion in that time frame; the executive branch can't use police powers to exercise prior restraint of abortions; and the legislature can't make laws restricting such acts - without an amendment.

That's a "right."

They are infinite. I have a right to eat cocoa puffs while repeating the number one over and over, I have a right to eat cocoapuffs while repeating the number two over and over, I have a right to eat cocoapuffs while repeating the number three over and over...
- You have no "rights" to do such things. - you just have the freedom to do them, due to absence of contravening legislation.

(Of course, the bit about repeating "two" over and over again falls under freedom of speech," but it's not a right separate from free speech.)

You don't know squat about the Constitution, the BoR, or the three branches of our government. All you seem to do is google your brain out, hoping whatever it barfs up supports your assertion. Quite humorously, usually it does anything but.

I'm not spending a whole day with your circular arguments and wanton ignorance, however. In your little universe, you can pretend you are right. We will ignore that every time in the past we have debated something you have been patently, verifiably wrong.

A fetus IS an actual person. A potenial is someone who might exist, but does not have a physical body, a fetus DOES. A fetus IS a human, its not a rock or an ape or a cell, its a living growing human in the early stages of development. It IS an actual, its not a conceot, or a thought or a maybe, it exists.

A fetus is a human, but not a person. A fetus can't think for itself until it is BORN. You are your own person when you are capable of an oppinion.


Pssst,CP, clean out your PM box.

- It is, for actual and not potential people.

LOL. You're still using that laughable line, huh? Just like you can't be "a little bit pregnant", you either are a person or you're not. A preborn baby is a living human being and not a 'potential person' but a person with potential. Quit discriminating, it is really nauseating.

And btw, no need to answer, this thread isn't an abortion debate, and also I don't want to debate it again with you at the moment. Ras and others already trounced every single 'argument' you've come up with.


It matters. But no more then any political speech. Do we take everything a politician says as fact of the way our Govt. operates? If a Democrat says in a speech that women have the right to abortion, does that ratify itself because a politican says it? Nay... The Decleration of Independance is a good little work of words, and a good representation of our views in regards to the empire opressing us, but is in no way shape or form grounds to base our laws on. Indeed, that is why they went ahead and did that silly writing of our constitution thing. Instead of just basing laws on the decleration.

I love how some of you casually toss aside any founding documents if they don't serve your purpose. But then something that ISN'T a founding document, such as a private letter from Jefferson, with his words taken out of context, you DO use as an entire basis for law. Of course because THAT "good little work" serves your purpose.

A fetus is a human, but not a person. A fetus can't think for itself until it is BORN. You are your own person when you are capable of an oppinion.

Personhood isn't defined by our current abilities... but our innate capacity, which the preborn baby has. And look it up in the dictionary, a person (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=person) is a living human. The preborn baby is living, and HUMAN.

I know you're young, I really hope you don't adopt CP's utilitarian ethics, that is the same mentality that led to NAZI's killing off the disabled, the elderly, mentally retarded, and anyone else they consider "useless eaters." It's wrong, Spaz, don't be misled just because you like the ex- rocker CowPunk.

Personhood isn't defined by our current abilities... but our innate capacity, which the preborn baby has. And look it up in the dictionary, a person (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=person) is a living human. The preborn baby is living, and HUMAN.

I know you're young, I really hope you don't adopt CP's utilitarian ethics, that is the same mentality that led to NAZI's killing off the disabled, the elderly, mentally retarded, and anyone else they consider "useless eaters." It's wrong, Spaz, don't be misled just because you like the ex- rocker CowPunk.


I don't know if you remeber, but I argued this point long before I EVER met CowPunk. Just because I'm 13 does not mean I don't have a mind of my own, you know.

But, when you talk about someone who has died, you say "They WERE such a good person..", right? So if a human has yet to be born, to have feelings, emotions and such, then its not really a PERSON....I'm not denying that a fetus isin't a human or that it isin't alive, but is it really a person?
I don't agree with abortion, either. I think that its wrong, but I also think that the state shouldn't have a say in it.

And please don't assume that I'm some kind of horrible baby killer. I can't count how many times I've been told I'm a bad person, murderer supporter, ect....

Personhood isn't defined by our current abilities... but our innate capacity, which the preborn baby has. And look it up in the dictionary, a person (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=person) is a living human. The preborn baby is living, and HUMAN.
- Without the neural structure that marks consciousness, you don't have those innate capacities, and prior to formation, a fetus lacks them as well.

A fetus is NOT a person, nor has the capacity for a personality, any more than a brain-dead individual does.

And the sense that you're using for the definition of "person" is NOT the legal one. Nor is it the one most adopt, since few people would think that a personality-less brain dead individual is a person.

You don't know squat about the Constitution, the BoR, or the three branches of our government. All you seem to do is google your brain out, hoping whatever it barfs up supports your assertion. Quite humorously, usually it does anything but.
- Sorry but I can argue you under the table when it comes to the Constitution, con law, or American history, and you've done nothing to acquit yourself otherwise.

Either provide some legit cites supporting your point of view from constitutional scholars or shut up.

I'm not spending a whole day with your circular arguments and wanton ignorance, however. In your little universe, you can pretend you are right. We will ignore that every time in the past we have debated something you have been patently, verifiably wrong.
- No, I've dispensed with every one of arguments with complete haste, like your bogus claim that "faith" means any kind of belief, or that atheism is a religion, or that you provided valid scientific evidence by flipping through news broadcasts.

It's one of the many advantages of being your intellectual superior.

I don't know if you remeber, but I argued this point long before I EVER met CowPunk. Just because I'm 13 does not mean I don't have a mind of my own, you know.

But, when you talk about someone who has died, you say "They WERE such a good person..", right? So if a human has yet to be born, to have feelings, emotions and such, then its not really a PERSON....I'm not denying that a fetus isin't a human or that it isin't alive, but is it really a person?
I don't agree with abortion, either. I think that its wrong, but I also think that the state shouldn't have a say in it.

And please don't assume that I'm some kind of horrible baby killer. I can't count how many times I've been told I'm a bad person, murderer supporter, ect....

No, I'm not saying you're a horrible person. And I know you have a mind of your own, ( but I know when we really look up to someone, sometimes they can be influential.) But I do have to say, to compare a dead person to a baby in the womb is completely ludicrous. The baby in the womb is LIVING, rapidly GROWING, his/her brain waves can be detected on an electroencephalogram as early as 40 days, plus of course a beating heart at 3 weeks. There's a person there, with value, so scraping that baby to pieces and tossing it as if he/she was garbage is homicide.

I swear. I would love a percent of threads in the News-Political Debate/In The News that have broken down into Abortion debates. It has to be about 30%.

Cindy, stop misquoting your opponents - as you've said many times yourself, a brain-dead person is NOT dead.

Like a fetus, and unlike a baby, a brain-dead patient lacks the cerebral capacity for consciousness, and is therefore not a "person."

Look at the Greek roots of the word "person"; ie., "that which sound comes through." That's what a "persona" is - something with the capacity to create sound, or some kind of mental awareness.

A fetus lacks that, and is not a person.

- Without the neural structure that marks consciousness, you don't have those innate capacities, and prior to formation, a fetus lacks them as well.

A fetus is NOT a person, nor has the capacity for a personality, any more than a brain-dead individual does.

And the sense that you're using for the definition of "person" is NOT the legal one. Nor is it the one most adopt, since few people would think that a personality-less brain dead individual is a person.

You've got your meanings all mixed up. YOU are talking about our current abilities, I am talking about the innate capacity. YES, the preborn baby has the innate capacity, from the moment the new life comes into existence, at conception. Just because the current capability to reason, or do a math problem :rolleyes: doesn't come til later doesn't mean the baby is not a person. A newborn also can't reason, or do much of anything but poop and sleep, but the newborn is a person too.

But, as we all know, a fetus does not have a personality. and acording to this http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=personality , a definition of personality is "the quality or condition of being a person". If you don't have the quality or condition of being a person, are you one?

Babies all act different. Some learn quicker and slower than others, some are loud, some are quite, some love to picked up, others hate it....they vary. They have personalities. But a fetus does not.

A fetus HAS no "innate capacity" for consciousness until late in term, because it doesn't have sufficient cerebral development.

What you're discussing is the POTENTIAL for cerebral development, and that's what marks its status as a POTENTIAL person.

For example, you cannot get out of a statutory rape charge by saying that the 15 year-old is an ACTUAL adult in an earlier state of development.

"Actual adult in an earlier state of development" is the definition of "potential adult," which is what a 15 year-old is.

A fetus HAS no "innate capacity" for consciousness until late in term.

You're still not getting it. (purposely, I think) I'm not talking about the current ABILITY, I'm talking about an inherent capacity.

I think you do know what I'm talking about, but you're playing innocent because you have no argument for it.

No, because what you're referring to as "inherent capacity" is really POTENTIAL.

Fetii have no inherent capacity for cognizance - it only manifests as their brains mature.

What they do have is a genetic blueprint for developing a cerebral cortex. And that's what's referred to as "potential." As it actualizes, consciousness begins.

That fact that they will be people in the future doesn't imply that they ARE people now.

personhood is an foolish criteria to base whether a human lives or dies anyway.
It is a philosophical concept, not a biological fact, and it evolves slowly as a human life develops.
There is no clear cut off that can be made.

It develops slowly in the womb, but by birth, we can all agree that it exists. Even babies have awareness of the world, and that's what marks a "person."

To deny that as the criteria is to affirm absurdities like the idea that harvesting organs from the brain dead is torture.

It develops slowly in the womb, but by birth, we can all agree that it exists. Even babies have awareness of the world, and that's what marks a "person."

babies have awareness in utero as well.


To deny that as the criteria is to affirm absurdities like the idea that harvesting organs from the brain dead is torture.

illogical.

No, because what you're referring to as "inherent capacity" is really POTENTIAL.

Fetii have no inherent capacity for cognizance - it only manifests as their brains mature.

What they do is have a genetic blueprint for developing a cerebral cortex. And that's what's referred to as "potential."

That fact that they will be people in the future doesn't imply that they ARE people now.

No, no, no. "Potential" implies something may or may not happen. For example, that the preborn may or may not be born as a human being. The fact is, unless the mother miscarries or unless you KILL the baby, there's no "if", there's no "potential", the baby IS a human being, person, and will be born as a person.... not as a dog, or cat, or anything else.

Potential is just another catchphrase used by those who wish to dehumanize the preborn baby, in order to justify the slaughter.

No, it's a potential person. It could be born not being a person. It's a human while in the womb even. See, BC, and I'm dead serious here, "human being" is a biological term. I could, in effect, abort a fetus and it'd still be a human fetus. I could kill you, and you'd still be a human being. Life and death are irrelevant to that state of being.

babies have awareness in utero as well.
- Not denying it - finding that point should be the crux. A simple EEG scan will do.

illogical.
- Not at all: if pre-cognizant fetii are "persons," then they're persons too.

Life and death are irrelevant to that state of being.

Absolutely inane.

If being alive and being dead are equivalent in the state of being, then why is murder a crime?

No, it's a potential person. It could be born not being a person. It's a human while in the womb even. See, BC, and I'm dead serious here, "human being" is a biological term. I could, in effect, abort a fetus and it'd still be a human fetus. I could kill you, and you'd still be a human being. Life and death are irrelevant to that state of being.

:yeahthat:

No, it's a potential person. It could be born not being a person. It's a human while in the womb even. See, BC, and I'm dead serious here, "human being" is a biological term. I could, in effect, abort a fetus and it'd still be a human fetus. I could kill you, and you'd still be a human being. Life and death are irrelevant to that state of being.

It could be born as a non-person? LOL. So, then you support infanticide?

No, no, no. "Potential" implies something may or may not happen.
- Actually, it implies that it something CAN be something.

For example, that the preborn may or may not be born as a human being.
- No, if it weren't to be born a human being, it wouldn't be a potential human: it would be a potential dog or cat or whatever.

"Potential human" implies that it can be a human and nothing else, if that potential is actualized.

The fact is, unless the mother miscarries or unless you KILL the baby
- i.e., if that potential isn't realized. Those are the circumstances in which the potential isn't actualized.

Potential is just another catchphrase used by those who wish to dehumanize the preborn baby, in order to justify the slaughter.
- You can't be a "baby" before you have the characteristics of a baby, one of which is physical independence from the mother.

Until that time it's a fetus. We would never call a baby a "fetus" outside the womb, for example.

It could be born as a non-person? LOL. So, then you support infanticide?
- After birth, it's no longer a potential person - it's an actual one. It has awareness of the world, and is therefore a person.

Absolutely inane.

If being alive and being dead are equivalent in the state of being, then why is murder a crime?
- I think he meant "to that quality." I disagree with the statement, though, because a dead human being can't be a potential person.

Nonetheless, a dead human being still belongs to the human species.

And the sense that you're using for the definition of "person" is NOT the legal one.

gimme a break. The law recognizes corporations as "persons"
The legal definition of "person" doesnbt mean squat, in my opinion.

a dead human being still belongs to the human species.

OH MY FRIGGING GOD!!!!!!!
LOL
LOL
LOL

Dude you and I went round and round about that exact issue and you sang a totaly different tune before.
Glad you are starting to come around.
;)

- After birth, it's no longer a potential person - it's an actual one. It has awareness of the world, and is therefore a person.

Um, go back and read what fl said. I was replying to his comment that it could be born not as a person.

I'll try to answer your other stuff in a bit. I'm doing 3 things at once here.

- I think he meant "to that quality." I disagree with the statement, though, because a dead human being can't be a potential person.

Nonetheless, a dead human being still belongs to the human species.

I don't get it. Then why was Terri Schiavo allowed to starve to death?

I don't get it. Then why was Terri Schiavo allowed to starve to death?
Because its what she wanted. She stated, before she went into the hospital, that if she was in that state of being that she wanted to be taken off life support. And yet, for several years, they denied her the right to die. :nonono:

Absolutely inane.

If being alive and being dead are equivalent in the state of being, then why is murder a crime?
Because the killing of a person is immoral. Not everything that is killed is murdered. If a person attempts to mruder me and I am limited to the options of being murdered or killing him, and I choose and succeed in killing that person, did I murder him? No, not necessarily. I defended myself using my only viable option. Therefore, I did not murder him. Or let's use the death penalty. I believe you are fond of it. If you are not, please forgive me, for I am confusing members again. If the killing of a person alone, or how about simply the killing of a human, is sufficient criteria for the definition of murder, then the death penalty is a form of murder for we are killing humans and/or persons. See the difference?

It could be born as a non-person? LOL. So, then you support infanticide?
Sure. Born dead. I think those are called "still-births." So it is born a human, but it is born dead. As a necessary criterion for personhood, I require viable life to exist. In short, dead things cannot be persons. So do I support infanticide? Well, that's a rather non sequitur question, but to answer it. I do not support nor do I condone infanticide. It is a disgusting, barbaric act that only the sickest and most perverted of individuals could ever perform.

- After birth, it's no longer a potential person - it's an actual one. It has awareness of the world, and is therefore a person.
Exactly. Truth be told, I consider somewhere between the point of viability and actual birth to be when personhood can actually be applied.

gimme a break. The law recognizes corporations as "persons"
- Not for the purposes of the Bill of Rights.

Wow. The Existential Bull Bleep is piled high and knee deep in this thread.

If we connect all of the dots, corposes are human beings and should have the same rights as the living. It does explain the voting patterns in Chicago.

I don't get it. Then why was Terri Schiavo allowed to starve to death?
- My nieceling Spaz did a fine job of answering this, but in the state of Florida, you have the right to refuse treatment in cases of cerebral death, and that falls to your next of kin in case you're incapacitated.

- Actually, it implies that it something CAN be something.

When I think of "potential", I think something may or may not happen. There's no doubt with the preborn, that you've got a person in there, as long as there is no miscarriage or KILLING.

- No, if it weren't to be born a human being, it wouldn't be a potential human: it would be a potential dog or cat or whatever.

Saying that it is a "potential person" implies that it may or may not become a person. That is just plain silly, because as I said, unless there is a miscarriage (which is natural) or unless you KILL the preborn, then there is no "if" or "potential"..... you've got a sure bet that there is a little person there...who will come out as a person. No "potential", it's a sure thing. Unless the mother had sex with an alien or something. :|

"Potential human" implies that it can be a human and nothing else, if that potential is actualized.

That is just so dumb. But I'm going to get back to this later to elaborate.

- i.e., if that potential isn't realized. Those are the circumstances in which the potential isn't actualized.

:blahblah:


- You can't be a "baby" before you have the characteristics of a baby, one of which is physical independence from the mother.

LOL! The preborn baby has no characteristics of a baby? Now I've heard it all.

Until that time it's a fetus. We would never call a baby a "fetus" outside the womb, for example.

And most expectant mothers don't go around saying "we're going to have a fetus shower" or we're going to decorate our fetus's room before our fetus gets here."

- My nieceling Spaz did a fine job of answering this, but in the state of Florida, you have the right to refuse treatment in cases of cerebral death, and that falls to your next of kin in case you're incapacitated.

But if all human bodies are equally members of the human species, then the State should not condone the changing of the state of that member.

Both of you are highly illogical.

Besides the fact that you and your nieceling have your heads thoroughly implanted in a damp dark area regarding what Terri wanted - which is a subject for a different thread.

Wow. The Existential Bull S-H-I-T is piled high and knee deep in this thread.

If we connect all of the dots, corposes are human beings and should have the same rights as the living. It does explain the voting patterns in Chicago.
- Corpses aren't "persons," since they no longer have vital processes or, for that matter, cognizance.

- Corpses aren't "persons," since they no longer have vital processes or, for that matter, cognizance.


Your comrade FL has claimed that all flesh, living or dead, are equally members of the human species. It is discrimination against the Life Challenged to not honor their right to vote.

Besides the fact that you and your nieceling have your heads thoroughly implanted in a damp dark area regarding what Terri wanted - which is a subject for a different thread.

You don't know Terri personaly, do you? If not, then you have no right to argue about what she wanted. Nor do I, but I am going on what was said on CNN, which I doubt would lie about something so stupid.

But if all human bodies are equally members of the human species, then the State should not condone the changing of the state of that member.
- Who said all members of the human species have equal rights, included the living, dead, and brain-dead?

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have the right to refuse treatment if you don't want to remain brain-dead, or why your spouse shouldn't have the right to determine that.

I would want that myself if I were her, my simple test. The legislators of the state of Florida agreed.

Both of you are highly illogical.
- No, you're just characteristically rigid.

Besides the fact that you and your nieceling have your heads thoroughly implanted in a damp dark area regarding what Terri wanted - which is a subject for a different thread.
- Answer: the laws of the state of Florida were carried out. If you don't like it, move to Florida and vote.

Your comrade FL has claimed that all flesh, living or dead, are equally members of the human species. It is discrimination against the Life Challenged to not honor their right to vote.
Yes, they do belong to the human species, but they are no longer persons.

Your comrade FL has claimed that all flesh, living or dead, are equally members of the human species. It is discrimination against the Life Challenged to not honor their right to vote.
- Fallacy: that the 14th Amendment applies to "members of the human species," and not "persons."

Yes, they do belong to the human species, but they are no longer persons.

Illogical. How can someone belong to the human species and not be a person?

You don't know Terri personaly, do you? If not, then you have no right to argue about what she wanted. Nor do I, but I am going on what was said on CNN, which I doubt would lie about something so stupid.

She had no written will. Her parents, siblings and good friends all said she was not for euthanasia and WANTED to live. In a case like that, with tons of doubts, if you're going to err, you err on the side of life. Not on the side of death.

DUH! By being DEAD! :rolleyes:

- Fallacy: that the 14th Amendment applies to "members of the human species," and not "persons."


Please provide separate definitions to show that members of the human species are not persons.

Wow. The Existential Bull S-H-I-T is piled high and knee deep in this thread.

If we connect all of the dots, corposes are human beings and should have the same rights as the living. It does explain the voting patterns in Chicago.
No, you are confusing terms, actually. "Personhood" is a philosophical term. "Human being" is a biological term. It's another form of the term "human," actually, which is defined as "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens." That's the difference. Now what we're saying is that "human beings" belong to the genus Homo while in the womb, during their life, and after death. I think that makes sense, personally, and that's not Existential to me, at the very least.

For one, as I mentioned, to be considered a "person," by extension from the Greek roots; "one from whom sound comes through," you do need to be ALIVE.

Illogical. How can someone belong to the human species and not be a person?
As I explained before, a person has to have a mind of their own. If it can't think or comprehend anything, its not a person.

I am going to petition the ACLU to start fighting for the rights of the UnDead. It is totally unfair that they, being members of the human species, are not also legally recognzed as persons full protected by the Bill of Rights.

Power To The UnDead!

Sadly, for your argument, Bo, the "undead" aren't human beings at all - they're zombies.

They also don't exist. George Romero will be impressed though. :nice:

Excuse me - but MEMBERS of the human species are members of the human species and deserve equal treatment under the law.

This is just non-livingism.

Sadly, for your argument, Bo, the "undead" aren't human beings at all - they're zombies.

They also don't exist. George Romero will be impressed though. :nice:

I think she ment "UnBorn", and mis-wrote it in her excitment. I do that sometimes when I have a good idea ;)

EDIT: never mind.

As I explained before, a person has to have a mind of their own. If it can't think or comprehend anything, its not a person.

Then by your argument, a person who can no longer think is no longer human, ergo, he cannot be a member of the human species.

"Members of the human species," as has already been pointed out, are NOT necessarily "persons," and it's only the latter that have equal rights under the 14th Amendment.

If you have no "persona," or cerebral capacity for awareness, you aren't a "person" with a personality.

- Sorry but I can argue you under the table when it comes to the Constitution, con law, or American history, and you've done nothing to acquit yourself otherwise.

Your track record shows entirely the opposite. You spew trite crap you gleaned off the 'net, most of which is entirely wrong. Like your citing of Jefferson and Adams's writings when you clearly had not even read them yourself. Well, either that, or you just couldn't comprehend them, which I suspect is more likely. Yeah, someone that states you have no rights whatsoever unless you believe in God is great person to bring up in argument for separation of church and state. /boggle


Either provide some legit cites supporting your point of view from constitutional scholars or shut up.

I don't live and die by google like you, sorry. Since you lack the ability to even formulate your own position with your own knowledge and logic, how the world can you argue for someone else's position/logic? You can't, as you have repeatedly demonstrated.


- No, I've dispensed with every one of arguments with complete haste, like your bogus claim that "faith" means any kind of belief,or that atheism is a religion,

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1024941&postcount=28

I never said that. Read above and go to the thread. After I totally defeated any non-sense the atheists threw at me regarding my above post, backed up by a formal logical proof, you tried to change the argument that I original put forth. If you can't argue the point, change the argument, even if it wasn't yours to begin with, is the Cowpunk mindset. Of course, it's always punctuated with a little obfuscatory, semantic asides to fully derail the original point/argument, insuring the thread drags on for days.


scientific evidence by flipping through news broadcasts.

I don't even know where you get that one from. Heh. Was this where you tried to claim that soda pop was bad for neural development? Haha .

Yes, this one:

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=992471&postcount=128

I do note the classic Cowpunk(TM) aproach: "oh crap, I'm wrong; I need to pretend I meant something else and you misunderstood me-- ahem, yes, it's terrible for persons with osteoporosis." ROFLMAO. Even more classic is the "after you waste all your time proving everything out my mouth is wrong, instead coming back and saying I was mistaken, I'm off to share my massive intellect with the next unfortunate thread I should happen to spot!"

OR was it this one? "I'm wrong, but I'll keep lying, saying you are wrong despite the fact anyone with a calculator and 2 brain cells could easily see I'm entirely in the wrong. "
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1023666&postcount=64


It's one of the many advantages of being your intellectual superior.

Hey, lay off the soda pop.

Then by your argument, a person who can no longer think is no longer human, ergo, he cannot be a member of the human species.
- No, he isn't a "person," but still a member of the human species. "Person" and "member of the human species" are NOT synonymous.

Then by your argument, a person who can no longer think is no longer human, ergo, he cannot be a member of the human species.

No. You can belong to the human species and not be a person, is my point.

As I explained before, a person has to have a mind of their own. If it can't think or comprehend anything, its not a person.

I went out with a guy like that...J/K... :)

No. You can belong to the human species and not be a person, is my point.

It is that mentality that leads to things like what happened in NAZI Germany. Killing off people who were "non-persons" or "sub-human."

No. You can belong to the human species and not be a person, is my point.


I'm sorry, sweetheart. I believe you are saying this in good faith, but it is not logical. If one's state of being defines one as being a member of the human species, then one is a person. This does depend upon our personal definitions of what human and person mean. In mine, if one is human, one is a person. If one no longer qualifies as a person, the humanity is gone.

It is that mentality that leads to things like what happened in NAZI Germany. Killing off people who were "non-persons" or "sub-human."

I am not a Nazi, nor will I become one. I do not believe in murdering people, I do not believe in causing misery for people that aren't like me. I simply think that abortion is not the killing of a PERSON. I still don't think its right, but it is no business of the state.

I went out with a guy like that...J/K... :)
You must be very attractive, then.
Sorry, I'm just remembering that joke about men have a brain and a dick, and only enough blood for one of them.

I'm sorry, sweetheart. I believe you are saying this in good faith, but it is not logical. If one's state of being defines one as being a member of the human species, then one is a person. This does depend upon our personal definitions of what human and person mean. In mine, if one is human, one is a person. If one no longer qualifies as a person, the humanity is gone.
Bo, the concept of "human being" is actually quite rigid in the English language. Personhood is not.

I am not a Nazi, nor will I become one. I do not believe in murdering people, I do not believe in causing misery for people that aren't like me. I simply think that abortion is not the killing of a PERSON. I still don't think its right, but it is no business of the state.

I believe that you are trying to be understanding. One thing you might want to consider is that babies develop in the mothers' wombs. The difference between a few stem cells in the first few days and an 8 month old fetus is quite substantial. It doesn't make sense that a late term fetus does not qualify as a person. The baby can feel things in the womb and respond to stimuli. The level of development does make a difference.

I am not a Nazi, nor will I become one. I do not believe in murdering people, I do not believe in causing misery for people that aren't like me. I simply think that abortion is not the killing of a PERSON. I still don't think its right, but it is no business of the state.


I know you're not. What I'm saying is that when we dehumanize certain types of people (certain races, or age groups, or mentally challenged people, etc) you are opening the door to all sorts of things, like what happened in Germany.

When you allow personhood to be defined by people in power, then you're playing a dangerous game. I'll post more on that later, when I have more time.

Your track record shows entirely the opposite. You spew trite crap you gleaned off the 'net, most of which is entirely wrong. Like your citing of Jefferson and Adams's writings when you clearly had not even read them yourself.
- Bull**** - I've read Jefferson and MADISON, and have never said anything about ADAMS. :rolleyes:


Well, either that, or you just couldn't comprehend them, which I suspect is more likely. Yeah, someone that states you have no rights whatsoever unless you believe in God is great person to bring up in argument for separation of church and state. /boggle
- Since I NEVER said anything about God and rights, that's a smear.

I don't live and die by google like you, sorry. Since you lack the ability to even formulate your own position with your own knowledge and logic, how the world can you argue for someone else's position/logic? You can't, as you have repeatedly demonstrated.
- No, as I've repeatedly demonstraed, my arguments beat yours, and you can't take it, can you, little man? :)

I never said that. Read above and go to the thread. After I totally defeated any non-sense the atheists threw at me regarding my above post, backed up by a formal logical proof, you tried to change the argument that I original put forth. If you can't argue the point, change the argument, even if it wasn't yours to begin with, is the Cowpunk mindset. Of course, it's always punctuated with a little obfuscatory, semantic asides to fully derail the original point/argument, insuring the thread drags on for days.
- Sorry, but your "logical proof" hinged on the bogus notion that