0
   

When Does Life Begin?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Abortion, Religion, Life
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:39 pm
real life wrote:
Can (or should) the US have more than one class of 'person' under the Constitution?

Murder, assault and battery, etc are crimes against 'persons'.

Ultimately we will not be able to have laws that recognize the unborn as 'persons' in one situation and 'nonpersons' in another.

It will have to go one way or the other.

One portion of the UVVA will have to found unconstitutional.

Will it be penalties for crimes against the unborn?

Or the exclusion for abortion?

------------------------------

The reason I say that the professor is spouting nonsense is that either the unborn IS a person.....

.....or IS NOT.

If the unborn IS a person, then abortion should be illegal.

If the unborn IS NOT a person, what twaddle is the prof dishing when he speaks of abortion as 'immoral'?

Why is it immoral if the unborn is not a person?


I tend to agree with you that ultimately it will go one way or another. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps the explicit exclusion of abortion in the UVVA is sufficient to meet a Constitutional challenge -- only time will tell.

No, he and I both make a difference in a moral determination and a legal one. A person is defined in the Constitution and it does not include the unborn. The purpose of the Constitution is not to legislate morality -- it is to protect the rights of the citizens and the unborn are not defined as citizens.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:40 pm
JPB wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
JPB wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Does a woman become a mother and that which is in her a person when and only when she decides?

Did black people become persons under the Constitution when government decided it was so? Or were they persons............all along?


Legally or morally?


Legally one thing morally another?


Certainly, particularly when there are conflicting moralities.


Just as it was with black America before the abolition of slavery. I bet many said to let the individual choose for themselves as to whether it is wrong.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:42 pm
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Can (or should) the US have more than one class of 'person' under the Constitution?

Murder, assault and battery, etc are crimes against 'persons'.

Ultimately we will not be able to have laws that recognize the unborn as 'persons' in one situation and 'nonpersons' in another.

It will have to go one way or the other.

One portion of the UVVA will have to found unconstitutional.

Will it be penalties for crimes against the unborn?

Or the exclusion for abortion?

------------------------------

The reason I say that the professor is spouting nonsense is that either the unborn IS a person.....

.....or IS NOT.

If the unborn IS a person, then abortion should be illegal.

If the unborn IS NOT a person, what twaddle is the prof dishing when he speaks of abortion as 'immoral'?

Why is it immoral if the unborn is not a person?


I tend to agree with you that ultimately it will go one way or another. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps the explicit exclusion of abortion in the UVVA is sufficient to meet a Constitutional challenge -- only time will tell.

No, he and I both make a difference in a moral determination and a legal one. A person is defined in the Constitution and it does not include the unborn. The purpose of the Constitution is not to legislate morality -- it is to protect the rights of the citizens and the unborn are not defined as citizens.


Who are defined as citizens?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:43 pm
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Can (or should) the US have more than one class of 'person' under the Constitution?

Murder, assault and battery, etc are crimes against 'persons'.

Ultimately we will not be able to have laws that recognize the unborn as 'persons' in one situation and 'nonpersons' in another.

It will have to go one way or the other.

One portion of the UVVA will have to found unconstitutional.

Will it be penalties for crimes against the unborn?

Or the exclusion for abortion?

------------------------------

The reason I say that the professor is spouting nonsense is that either the unborn IS a person.....

.....or IS NOT.

If the unborn IS a person, then abortion should be illegal.

If the unborn IS NOT a person, what twaddle is the prof dishing when he speaks of abortion as 'immoral'?

Why is it immoral if the unborn is not a person?


I tend to agree with you that ultimately it will go one way or another. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps the explicit exclusion of abortion in the UVVA is sufficient to meet a Constitutional challenge -- only time will tell.

No, he and I both make a difference in a moral determination and a legal one. A person is defined in the Constitution and it does not include the unborn. The purpose of the Constitution is not to legislate morality -- it is to protect the rights of the citizens and the unborn are not defined as citizens.


So, if the unborn is not a person, why is it immoral to destroy it? It would have no more moral consequence than removing a wart.

Why this fence-sitting?

If the unborn is not a person, you shouldn't feel uneasy about it at all.

If it is a person, then killing the unborn should be not only considered immoral, but illegal as well.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:44 pm
Bartikus wrote:
JPB wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
JPB wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Does a woman become a mother and that which is in her a person when and only when she decides?

Did black people become persons under the Constitution when government decided it was so? Or were they persons............all along?


Legally or morally?


Legally one thing morally another?


Certainly, particularly when there are conflicting moralities.


Just as it was with black America before the abolition of slavery. I bet many said to let the individual choose for themselves as to whether it is wrong.


Yep, back then if you thought it was immoral to own slaves, there was a simple answer:

Don't own one.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:45 pm
Bartikus wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Can (or should) the US have more than one class of 'person' under the Constitution?

Murder, assault and battery, etc are crimes against 'persons'.

Ultimately we will not be able to have laws that recognize the unborn as 'persons' in one situation and 'nonpersons' in another.

It will have to go one way or the other.

One portion of the UVVA will have to found unconstitutional.

Will it be penalties for crimes against the unborn?

Or the exclusion for abortion?

------------------------------

The reason I say that the professor is spouting nonsense is that either the unborn IS a person.....

.....or IS NOT.

If the unborn IS a person, then abortion should be illegal.

If the unborn IS NOT a person, what twaddle is the prof dishing when he speaks of abortion as 'immoral'?

Why is it immoral if the unborn is not a person?


I tend to agree with you that ultimately it will go one way or another. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps the explicit exclusion of abortion in the UVVA is sufficient to meet a Constitutional challenge -- only time will tell.

No, he and I both make a difference in a moral determination and a legal one. A person is defined in the Constitution and it does not include the unborn. The purpose of the Constitution is not to legislate morality -- it is to protect the rights of the citizens and the unborn are not defined as citizens.


Who are defined as citizens?


So then illegal aliens would have no more protection than the unborn?
0 Replies
 
mismi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:46 pm
I know JPB - I am struggling with that whole issue of what is considered a moral issue and what is considered legal - there are some conflicts in my mind - I will probably just hold my tongue until I can define them clearly.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:50 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Can (or should) the US have more than one class of 'person' under the Constitution?

Murder, assault and battery, etc are crimes against 'persons'.

Ultimately we will not be able to have laws that recognize the unborn as 'persons' in one situation and 'nonpersons' in another.

It will have to go one way or the other.

One portion of the UVVA will have to found unconstitutional.

Will it be penalties for crimes against the unborn?

Or the exclusion for abortion?

------------------------------

The reason I say that the professor is spouting nonsense is that either the unborn IS a person.....

.....or IS NOT.

If the unborn IS a person, then abortion should be illegal.

If the unborn IS NOT a person, what twaddle is the prof dishing when he speaks of abortion as 'immoral'?

Why is it immoral if the unborn is not a person?


I tend to agree with you that ultimately it will go one way or another. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps the explicit exclusion of abortion in the UVVA is sufficient to meet a Constitutional challenge -- only time will tell.

No, he and I both make a difference in a moral determination and a legal one. A person is defined in the Constitution and it does not include the unborn. The purpose of the Constitution is not to legislate morality -- it is to protect the rights of the citizens and the unborn are not defined as citizens.


Who are defined as citizens?


So then illegal aliens would have no more protection than the unborn?


Or do the unborn stand alone? Killing an illegal alien outside of self defense will find someone in prison right?

Can you explain?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:50 pm
[quote="real]Yep, back then if you thought it was immoral to own slaves, there was a simple answer:

Don't own one.[/quote]

PRECISELY! and if today you think that having an abortion is immoral, there is a simple answer:

Don't have one.

It took an Amendment to the Constitution of abolish slavery and it will take one to properly establish abortion as illegal which, in my opinion, will still not abolish abortion.

RL, let me ask you an honest question... Do you believe that making abortion illegal will eliminate, or even substantially reduce, abortions?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:58 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Who are defined as citizens?


They are defined in the 14th Amendment
Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:59 pm
JPB wrote:
[quote="real]Yep, back then if you thought it was immoral to own slaves, there was a simple answer:

Don't own one.


PRECISELY! and if today you think that having an abortion is immoral, there is a simple answer:

Don't have one.

It took an Amendment to the Constitution of abolish slavery and it will take one to properly establish abortion as illegal which, in my opinion, will still not abolish abortion.

RL, let me ask you an honest question... Do you believe that making abortion illegal will eliminate, or even substantially reduce, abortions?[/quote]

Maybe not JPB....unlike black men and women who had the backing of the government AND able to SPEAK out and STAND up for THEMSELVES.......the unborn cannot.

The unborn are unable even if they willed to do so.

and we are supposed to keep our mouths SHUT? and stay out of other people's BUSINESS?

Unlike the unborn.......we are UNABLE to keep quiet!
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:01 pm
JPB, give me a hug please. I am going through some tough times. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:04 pm
real life wrote:
So, if the unborn is not a person, why is it immoral to destroy it? It would have no more moral consequence than removing a wart.

Why this fence-sitting?

If the unborn is not a person, you shouldn't feel uneasy about it at all.

If it is a person, then killing the unborn should be not only considered immoral, but illegal as well.


I don't see it as fence-sitting, but differentiating moral decisions made by an individual (I personally could not have an abortion -- that is my moral position), and the interests of the State determining that the decision must be applied to all citizens (I equally don't see the State having substantial interest in protecting the unborn over the rights explicitly granted to it's citizens).
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:10 pm
It's a good thing the unborn cannot speak or put up any resistance huh?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:16 pm
Bartikus wrote:
...and we are supposed to keep our mouths SHUT? and stay out of other people's BUSINESS?

Unlike the unborn.......we are UNABLE to keep quiet!


Bartikus, I ask you the same question... do you honestly believe the making abortion illegal will eliminate, or even substantially reduce, abortions?

As I said before... if there were no unplanned pregnancies, there would be no abortions (or at least only those where the life of the mother was in jeopardy). Also, if there were fewer unplanned pregnancies, there would be fewer abortions.

Focusing energies to make abortions illegal (which, imo, would require an Amendment to the Constitution giving equal standing to the unborn) is better spent in working to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies there thereby reducing the number of abortions.

Is the goal of making abortions illegal to eliminate abortions or to satisfy the moral position of those making the plea?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:23 pm
JPB wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
...and we are supposed to keep our mouths SHUT? and stay out of other people's BUSINESS?

Unlike the unborn.......we are UNABLE to keep quiet!


Bartikus, I ask you the same question... do you honestly believe the making abortion illegal will eliminate, or even substantially reduce, abortions?

As I said before... if there were no unplanned pregnancies, there would be no abortions (or at least only those where the life of the mother was in jeopardy). Also, if there were fewer unplanned pregnancies, there would be fewer abortions.

Focusing energies to make abortions illegal (which, imo, would require an Amendment to the Constitution giving equal standing to the unborn) is better spent in working to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies there thereby reducing the number of abortions.

Is the goal of making abortions illegal to eliminate abortions or to satisfy the moral position of those making the plea?


Who believes having an abortion as opposed to avoiding an unplanned pregnancy is the moral high ground?

Whose moral position thinks abortion is better? Nobody I know. Whose making that plea?

The only reason it would'nt is because the unborn cannot fight back and because no one will fight in their stead. Currently not even the law.

We won't know if the numbers are reduced until then will we....?How do you know they won't here in the U.S?

What do you consider substantial regarding the unborn?(if your not sure if they are even human beings) How much is substantial when treated and viewed like common garbage, a clump of cells, a ball of skin and tissue, like a tapeworm...etc.

You want to reduce abortions?

Begin by calling it what it is........a human being. Wanted or not...planned or unplanned .............a human life it remains. That's a great place to start.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:50 pm
Bartikus wrote:

We won't know if the numbers are reduced until then will we....?How do you know they won't here in the U.S?


You're asking for equal legal standing of the unborn to support legislation that will directly conflict with the woman's rights guaranteed under the Constitution when we won't know if it will be effective until after the fact?

Do you have case law where someone's Constitutional rights have been removed in favor of a maybe?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:54 pm
JPB wrote:
Bartikus wrote:

We won't know if the numbers are reduced until then will we....?How do you know they won't here in the U.S?


You're asking for equal legal standing of the unborn to support legislation that will directly conflict with the woman's rights guaranteed under the Constitution when we won't know if it will be effective until after the fact?

Do you have case law where someone's Constitutional rights have been removed in favor of a maybe?


The unborn human being is not clearly mentioned in the constitution as a citizen or a person(as you said)....along with many others.

Tell me where a woman's Constitutional right to abort is clearly indicated in said document! (using your standard)

Thanks.

How does taking away the abortion option taking away her right to choose if she becomes pregnant?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:58 pm
Have you read the entire R v W decision? The woman's right to self determine an abortion is clearly covered under the 14th Amendment. The interests of the State can supersede that right under certain circumstance (including gestational age).
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:59 pm
I always heard life begins at 40. I even got a t-shirt that says so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » When Does Life Begin?
  3. » Page 149
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.84 seconds on 02/08/2025 at 06:10:09
▲ ▼