AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

Incorrect. The police have to be in the process of making an arrest for that to come into play; that is to say, they have to have a pre-existing reason to enter the building in the first place. They cannot simply enter buildings and search for evidence at will. A 'protective sweep' refers to situations in which there is a large percentage chance of danger being posed to the officers; this excludes all but a few situations.

If the police are making an arrest in an apartment building, they can, under the "protective sweep" ruling, search other units in that building without a warrant.

I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort

Quote:

I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort

This is actually a rather telling (and sad) comment on your part.
If you really dont believe in the sanctity of life, then you have no honest objection to the death penalty, do you.

You also would have no objection to murder, suicide, or any other types of killing of other people.

Tell me, since you dont believe in the sanctity of life, you would have no problem with your own family being killed.
After all, their lives mean nothing to you.

And why are you objecting to the "innocent people" being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?
After all, their lives arent important either.

Quote:

Until a fetus is viable - that is to say, until it can live outside the womb - it isn't alive; it is a part of the mother's body.

I asked you to clarify this once before, and you dodged the question.
But since you brought it up again, I'll ask again.

Since we know that a fetus, if born at 7 months, can survive outside the womb.
So, according to your argument, it is viable and has rights.
Now, if that same fetus is carried to term, are you actually saying that it has no rights?
Are you saying that its also a matter of when a baby is born?

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Your whole post was basically nothing but one big Appeal to Extremes. That is a Logical Fallacy and you should recognize that.

Once potential life becomes VIABLE (capable of living outside the womb), then the STATE has an interest in protecting potential life.

If the police are making an arrest in an apartment building, they can, under the "protective sweep" ruling, search other units in that building without a warrant.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that the sanctity of life of any sort is merely--and not mostly--a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Therefore, you conclude or recommend WHAT?

Quote:

Your whole post was basically nothing but one big Appeal to Extremes. That is a Logical Fallacy and you should recognize that.

No, I dont believe it was.

You said that you dont believe in the "sanctity of life" so why do you care if anyone gets killed or how they get killed?
And if life isnt sacred to you, then you should have no objection to any type of death, under any circumstances.

Since you do have objections to unneeded deaths, or since you do oppose the death penalty, for whatever reason you want to believe, it shows that you do believe in the "sanctity of life".

You can try and convince yourself that you dont, but your own statements show that to not be true.

Quote:

Once potential life becomes VIABLE (capable of living outside the womb), then the STATE has an interest in protecting potential life.

But that then requires you (and everyone else) to admit that an unborn fetus DOES have the right to life.

And since preemie babies are surviving after being born earlier and earlier, where do you draw the line?

And do we then agree that ANY abortion done after the first trimester is intentionally killing "potential life" and should not be allowed.

Quote:

Once potential life becomes VIABLE (capable of living outside the womb), then the STATE has an interest in protecting potential life.

But that then requires you (and everyone else) to admit that an unborn fetus DOES have the right to life.
And since preemie babies are surviving after being born earlier and earlier, where do you draw the line?
And do we then agree that ANY abortion done after the first trimester is intentionally killing "potential life" and should not be allowed.

Once potential life becomes VIABLE (capable of living outside the womb), then the STATE has an interest in protecting potential life. But potential life doesn't have any rights secured by the Constitution until it is actually BORN.

Exceptional cases don't mean that the average baby would survive outside the womb at an early age; you are discounting the huge number who do not survive.

Quote:

Exceptional cases don't mean that the average baby would survive outside the womb at an early age; you are discounting the huge number who do not survive.

Do you realize how callous that sounds?
A huge number of people dont survive cancer (all types), so lets not do anything to try and save them.

Thats exactly what you are saying.

That lifesaving attempts should only be based on overall numbers, like a business.
We shouldnt try to save any individual from something that others have died from.

If you truly believe that then there is no realistic or rational way to continue this discussion with you.

The point here is that saying that a very early premie has survived after the very helping hand of science is not a good standard for viability.

Why don't you just stick to discussing what I've actually written,

The point here is that saying that a very early premie has survived after the very helping hand of science is not a good standard for viability.

Quote:

Why don't you just stick to discussing what I've actually written,

You said that you DONT believe in the "sanctity of life".
Therefore, no life is important to you and how or if people die means absolutely nothing to you.