Abortion

Foxfyre wrote:

The child, however, born or unborn, is a human being with unalienable rights and is ethically owned by nobody.

NEWS FLASH: IT IS A NON-SENTIENT CLUMP OF CELLS WITHOUT EVEN THE CAPABILITY TO DEVELOP ON IT'S OWN.

IronLionZion wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The child, however, born or unborn, is a human being with unalienable rights and is ethically owned by nobody.

NEWS FLASH: IT IS A NON-SENTIENT CLUMP OF CELLS WITHOUT EVEN THE CAPABILITY TO DEVELOP ON IT'S OWN.

ILZ--
The same can be said of you, and no one could prove otherwise.
I understand that this "clump" does not look human to you, but scientifically, it IS. Try being objective.

The child, however, born or unborn, is a human being with unalienable rights and is ethically owned by nobody.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Of course it's human. So are my nail clippings. It is not sentient. This is pretty much unanimously agreed upon by, like, all scientists/sane people everywhere.

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

Quote:

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

So tell me, does an 8 1/2 month old "fetus" qualify as a life??

geez, deb. there ya go with that whole settled law thing again...
----

welcome to a2k xenoche. the fun is fast and furious! have a good time.

you bring up an excellent point; it does sorta seem like an awful lot of pro-lifers lose their over-arching concern for "the baby" after it is born.

seems weird to me;

in the womb = "save that human being at all costs".

outside the womb = no interest in making sure that the l'il one has guaranteed health care, not much interest in assuring a quality education, not much interest in supporting their exposure to the arts, and even stranger, an apparent willingness to send them to pre-emptive war without thinking too hard about it.

if "all life is sacred", it has to be sacred all of the time. not just when it suits your personal interest or faith.

and btw, xenoche, i congratulate your girl's decision to have the child. and your acceptance of her role as the decision maker.

IronLionZion wrote:

Of course it's human. So are my nail clippings. It is not sentient. This is pretty much unanimously agreed upon by, like, all scientists/sane people everywhere.

Is that your argument, then? These people that you look up to say it's so, and you just agree? C'mon, man. Try a little harder, eh?

And to Debra, I am unaware of any requirement that a personal opinion based on one's sense of morality or ethics must be based on any factual premise. But I, and I suspect most pro-lifers, do not base their sense of morality or ethics or the value they place on human life or their conclusions of right and wrong on the dictates of any court ruling or law.

Arguing with Right Blogostan (ie, Foxfyre) is like arguing with a crafty, deeply disturbed, mentally ill person. No matter how eloquently you speak and effectively you shatter the logical inconstancies of their arguments, they will never concede defeat. Debate on the merits - of any point - is a virtual exercise in futility. You are LIBERAL and thus you are hated. Your opinion has no value. You words have no merit. You are an enemy.

John Creasy wrote:

Quote:

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

So tell me, does an 8 1/2 month old "fetus" qualify as a life??

Why is the gestation period nine months?

Anon

You are wasting your time discussing things with those who lack the ability to discuss them rationally and with logic.

Cycloptichorn

Most pro-lifers I think put the responsibility for that squarely on the heads of the parents who have no business risking pregnancy unless they can provide a child with what s/he needs.

Although I may never convince Foxfyre that she may not impose her moral beliefs on others through the operation of our laws----I don't think it's a waste of time to point out the dishonesty and hypocrisy of her agenda.

Yet, those moral beliefs that one has the right to kill their own child prior to birth was thrust upon this nation at the Federal Level.

This is a 2 way street and goes against what in my view is States Rights issue.

Why should people in the State of S. Dakota be forced to amend their laws to satisfy the State of California?

Foxfyre wrote:

And to Debra, I am unaware of any requirement that a personal opinion based on one's sense of morality or ethics must be based on any factual premise. But I, and I suspect most pro-lifers, do not base their sense of morality or ethics or the value they place on human life or their conclusions of right and wrong on the dictates of any court ruling or law.

You stated a conclusion without setting forth any factual premises that would support your conclusion. Based on the foregoing, you acknowledge that your conclusion is completely unsupportable and is solely the product of your moral beliefs.

Accordingly, you are entitled to have whatever moral beliefs you choose to have and may apply those beliefs to your own life. However, we have an enormous problem in our constitutional republic when you seek to impose your moral beliefs on others who don't share your beliefs via the enactment of laws.