Craven de Kere wrote:fishin' wrote:
Yes, and you should note that I didn't either.. Context is a wonderful thing.
Context is a wonderful thing, my question is if you plan to use it. What relevance does the date of the law carry?
The relevance that is carries is that Laci Peterson was brought up as an example (by Lola) and the date clearly demonstrates that her case was not in any way, a consideration in drafting the law - exactly as you stated.
Quote:fishin' wrote:
Not near as good as yours.
Show me. I did not create a straw man. It can be argued that those who said that the Republicans were doing this and that made a straw man but I made no comment along those lines, if you think I have made a straw man please show it. Feckless allegations are exactly that, feckless allegations.
Quote:fishin' wrote:No. It's a perfect example of frustration with people raising BS political idealogy in a thread for absolutely no reason.
So you counter with your own brand? Hence the two wrongs don't make a right comment.
Yup. My comment was intended to be a tongue in cheek response intended to demnostrate the absurdity of the "religious conservative Republicans" comment. Apparently people took notice.
Quote:fishin' wrote:Hardly. The law which is the topic of this discussion protects the rights of those women who wish to have their child and punishes those who act to deny them that right. Someone who is agaisnt the law on the basis that it is somehow an infringement on a woman's right to have an abortion are placing one side of the Freedom of Choice decision above the other and they are on equeal footing. No, they aren't denying them the choice, just the possible freedom to make that choice.
This is unmitigated bull, protecting the woman's right to bear her child is covered under other unreated laws. The people here on this thread have expressed concern that this is an issue that is intended to be used to strengthen the pro-life camp's case. Nowhere did they suggest that anything be done to weaken a woman's right to carry her child and the laws that protect these rights.
Really? Which unrelated laws cover this? There is another case pending in NC which is somewheat similar. A woman, 7.5 months pregnant was murdered. The accused is being held on one charge. No additional charges are available nor is there any additional penalty for the fact that the woman was 7.5 months pregnant. When this bill was in the Judicary Committee in the House there were 4 other cases that were covered where there was no additional charges/penalties available to prosecute the offenders with. At the Federal level, there AREN'T "other laws". What is unmitigated bull here is the claim that the bill infringes on abortion rights.
Quote:A) the date of the law was not an issue. It's ability to afford the woman's child more protection was. You chose to name a date. Red herring.
The rationale for that is listed above.
Quote:B) Nobody wants the woman to have less of a right to bear her child. Straw man.
Straw man yourself. Where did I ever say they did? What I said was that they weren't holding the abortion and having the child options on the Freedom of Choice decision on equeal levels.
The argument is being made that this proposed law somehow infringes on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion when the bill clearly says otherwise. They don't want to lessen the woman's right to have a child but they don't want to strengthen the protection of that right either. The bill doesn't weaken existing abortion laws in any way shape or form but not having the bill leaves the federal government without a criminal remedy for cases where things like this occur. We have several clear cases where women WERE denied the right to have their child and those who are against this law are basiclly saying that they don't want to do anything about it because of a fear of some possible further future action which is precluded in the law itself. The right to have the child exists and we have proof that people are being denied that right. Should that be allowed to continue?
Quote:C)You are the only person calling a fetus a piece of ground beef. This is a silly rhetorical ploy, you wish to put words in the mouths of your opponents but futher more want to make it as vile as possible. They allegedly not only think it's meat but ground as well. This is the epitome of a straw man.
Call it a bicycle. Call it a car. Call it whatever you'd like. The reduction of a fetus to mere property wasn't done by me and ought to be offensive to anyone. It is also a faulty view of standing law.
Quote:Please point out my straw men. When I called your arguments straw men I pointed them out and explained why I think so.
Look at your responses. You didn't counter most of the points nor did you counter the overall idea. You made lots of accusations of red herrings and straw man arguments. "Nice straw man you have there" is a rebuttal and/or explanation????
Another example:
Terry said "Like any other property, she may dispose of it if she chooses but must be compensated for any harm done to it by others."
to wit I commented: "Property? Compensated? So the woman should be handed $20 and told to be on her way? What is the cash value of a fetus nowadays?"
And then you followed with: "What's the value of an adult's life these days? The difficulty in quantifying value of life that does not have a policy taken out on it is one not particular to this case."
The original point raised there was that the fetus has (or should have) no status other than property and that the woman "must be compensated" which I commented on and then you commented that it isn't particular to this case.
You disected the comment and chose to focus on one line and missed the point entirely. The value is irrelevant. The issue I questioned is the reduction of the fetus to property and afixing a value to that "property".
