Colorado to vote on whether to give zygotes and blastocysts full human rights

[Alonzo]

DENVER, Colorado, May 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Colorado citizens will have an historic chance to vote into their constitution a proposed amendment that would define "person" in law to include any human being from the moment of fertilization and challenge the very foundations of the 1973 Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion throughout the United States.

Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman on Thursday approved Amendment 48, entitled "Definition of a Person," after his office validated 103,377 signatures, far surpassing the 76,047 required for the amendment to appear on the ballot in November. The petition drive was led by Colorado for Equal Rights, which collected more than 130,000 signatures with the help of 1300 dedicated pro-life volunteers.

The proposed amendment would add a new section to Article II of the Colorado state constitution which would read, "the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/files/initiativetext.p...

The Colorado personhood amendment is the first of its kind in the nation, and an especially historic one, since Colorado, the first US state before Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion, now has a chance to be the first to establish the personhood of the human being from conception.

"Our strategy is that until you define the unborn child as a person, how can the laws protect them, when they can't even consider them a person?" Kristi Burton, 20, a spokeswoman for Colorado for Equal Rights and key leader behind the ballot initiative, told LifeSiteNews.

"Our goal in this campaign is to have a good positive discussion with the voters of Colorado about how every life counts, every life is valuable," said Burton. "What is the unborn child? Are they people? And if so don't they deserve the same rights as the rest of us?"

This concept of personhood is absent from US law and was the driving rationale behind the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion across the United States. If passed, the Colorado amendment would exploit a fundamental weakness in Roe that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun admitted to exist when he wrote the decision.

Blackmun then had concluded: "If this suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

"For the first time in 40 years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of the unborn," stated Brian Rohrbough, president of American Right to Life.

Although Colorado for Equal Rights has run a very economical campaign so far, it is looking to muster greatly needed donations as the abortion industry masses a juggernaut of financial resources to defeat the initiative in this crucial phase of the campaign.

"The so-called 'Human Life Amendment' is dangerous and deceptive," said Protect Families, Protect Choice, a pro-abortion front group dedicated to defeating the measure, in a statement. "This amendment could make abortion illegal at ALL times, even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. It could outlaw abortion even in the cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is at risk."

"The amendment is so extreme it could even ban several common forms of birth control and prohibit in-vitro fertilization and lifesaving stem cell research."

However, while pro-abortion lobbies, including Planned Parenthood, marshal massive financial and legal resources from across the United States to defeat the proposed initiative, the state's largest pro-life organization, the Catholic Church in Colorado led by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, has opted to remain on the sidelines.

Although many Catholics have signed on the petitions, and over half the volunteers are Catholic, Chaput and the other two bishops of the Colorado Catholic Conference, have decided for the time being not to identify the Church with the proposed personhood amendment, nor devote its enormous spiritual and financial resources into procuring victory.

"We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. Individual Catholics may choose to work for its passage. The bishops' spokeswoman Jennifer Kraska told the Denver Post in February. "At the same time, we recognize that other people committed to the sanctity of life have raised serious questions about this specific amendment's timing and content."

LifeSiteNews requested comment from Kraska, however none was received by press time on account of the consecration of James D. Conley as the new auxiliary bishop

Burton, however, told LifeSiteNews that she and many other pro-life advocates, including the Thomas More Law Center, disagree and believe the time is ripe for a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, especially at a point in history when the next appointment to the Supreme Court may come from a pro-abortion Democratic president.

"We believe that now is always the right time to do what's right," said Burton. "Martin Luther King, jr. said that, and he said it of the civil rights issue of his day, and I believe protecting the unborn child is in a way the civil rights issue of our day. It's never right to stand back and say 'well someday we'll get that done.' If it's right let's get it done now."

To visit and learn more about Colorado for Equal Rights and the historic personhood amendment:
http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/

To read an abbreviated list of organized supporters including legal organizations, international/national/state pro-life groups and leaders, churches, businesses, and social and political leaders behind the Colorado Human Life Amendment:
http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/node/11

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053007.html

They should make bumper stickers saying:

"Save the blastocysts!" and "Save the zygotes!".

[Drocket]

I can't wait for this to pass and all the women who have miscarriages get thrown in jail for negligent homicide.

[PostmodernProphet]

interesting.....a vote like this on the November ballot will probably insure that both the far left and the far right will have 100% participation in the election in Colorado......I wonder what impact that will have on the presidential election since Colorado is one of the possible swing states.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

A test for Americans Constitutional knowledge of the source of individual rights......

One can only wait and see if they are educated, or emotional.

[PostmodernProphet]

the only test out there is....have rights been recognized or ignored.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

All rights able to be recognized, have been.

This amendment will only work to remove rights from women. Fetus' have no claim in any way to individual rights or a right to life, since both directly disempower the rights of the woman on whom the fetus' life depends, without choice, will or ability to change anything.

[PostmodernProphet]

face it, Os, the only test you use is whether you want to or not.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

You're right, the question is whether you want to allow government to use force to subvert womens rights, and let the state come between her and her own body.

My stance would be clearly, no.

[Elrathin]

the only test out there is....have rights been recognized or ignored.....

It's funny watching Christians shout about rights of CELLS, but conveniently discriminate against same sex marriages. It really shows how much you REALLY care about rights. HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS.

[AlanC]

It's funny watching Christians shout about rights of CELLS, but conveniently discriminate against same sex marriages. It really shows how much you REALLY care about rights. HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS.

That's because the right to "life" is basic to all our laws. There is no right to "marriage" defined in the constitution or anywhere else.

[PostmodernProphet]

It's funny watching Christians shout about rights of CELLS, but conveniently discriminate against same sex marriages. It really shows how much you REALLY care about rights. HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS.

you want hypocrisy?.....how about someone who pretends a human being is nothing but cells if they want to kill them, but calls them their baby if they want to keep them......

[Wndrtch]

All rights able to be recognized, have been.

This amendment will only work to remove rights from women. Fetus' have no claim in any way to individual rights or a right to life, since both directly disempower the rights of the woman on whom the fetus' life depends, without choice, will or ability to change anything.

And how is that any different than a newborn?

[Wndrtch]

You're right, the question is whether you want to allow government to use force to subvert womens rights, and let the state come between her and her own body.

My stance would be clearly, no.

The only "Right" in this case, would be for a woman to defend her life, if her pregnancy is is threatening it.

Killing children for birth control, is disgusting.

[PatrickHenry]

Killing children for birth control, is disgusting.Damn right, it is.

Especially when it is so easy to prevent conception by other means.

I still don't think an unimplanted zygote is a baby with rights to life.

That position would mean that any IVF zygote had a right to implantation...

[preservanation]

If we could use fetal intestines as male prophylactics, it would close the liberal loop, as it were.
Waste not...want not.

[Wndrtch]

Damn right, it is.

Especially when it is so easy to prevent conception by other means.

No shit, huh!

I still don't think an unimplanted zygote is a baby with rights to life.

I could do that, considering that implantation happens within the first 72 hours of conception. Most women never even suspect they are pregnant, until inplantation, so it shouldn't be a problem.

That position would mean that any IVF zygote had a right to implantation...

I don't think we would have to worry about seeing throngs of zygote's marching on Washington for their right to implantation.

[PostmodernProphet]

Damn right, it is.

Especially when it is so easy to prevent conception by other means.

I still don't think an unimplanted zygote is a baby with rights to life.

That position would mean that any IVF zygote had a right to implantation...

you are right....they probably do.....

[PatrickHenry]

you are right....they probably do.....
That's not my position, tho.

I think that post-conception birthcontrol should be limited to preventing implantation.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I think all positions expressed are clearly subjectively biased, and devoid of the recognition of where natural rights come from. A fetus has no natural rights, except at the will and ability of the mother.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think all positions expressed are clearly subjectively biased, and devoid of the recognition of where natural rights come from. A fetus has no natural rights, except at the will and ability of the mother.
how do you explain the fact that prior to Roe v Wade they DID have rights which were taken away by the state.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
how do you explain the fact that prior to Roe v Wade they DID have rights which were taken away by the state.....

A more religiously biased court, and a failure of it being properly addressed, which even Roe didn't do.

[PostmodernProphet]

that doesn't address my point.....they HAD rights....which were taken away by the state.....had nothing to do with the actions of the mother before Roe v Wade.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP, you are obviously wrong.

They never had rights explicitly, and the courts prior to Roe wrongly assumed they did, ignoring where natural rights eminate from.

Roe was a first step at addressing that fallacy, but obviously didn't go far enough.

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP, you are obviously wrong.

They never had rights explicitly, and the courts prior to Roe wrongly assumed they did, ignoring where natural rights eminate from.

Roe was a first step at addressing that fallacy, but obviously didn't go far enough.

sorry, incorrect view.....they had rights recognized under the law, the fallacy WAS the Roe v Wade decision when the mother's right of "privacy" became paramount.....an error we hope gets corrected......

[Wndrtch]

I think all positions expressed are clearly subjectively biased, and devoid of the recognition of where natural rights come from. A fetus has no natural rights, except at the will and ability of the mother.

Isn't that the purpose of this law? To change it so a baby in eutero can be protected from Mom murdering it?

After all, isn't our Constitution predicated on the idea that our laws protect the weak?

[Wndrtch]

I think all positions expressed are clearly subjectively biased, and devoid of the recognition of where natural rights come from. A fetus has no natural rights, except at the will and ability of the mother.

Sorry, but this is a person to me.

http://www.pregnancy.org//images/articles/7weeks300x485.jpg

This is an image of a child at 7 weeks. Looks like a person to me. And if this is a person at 7 weeks, then it is at implantation also.

At one week:


Neural tube forms - It will develop into the nervous system (Brain, spinal cord, hair, and skin). Already your baby has the foundation for thought, senses, feeling, and more!
Heart and primitive circulatory system rapidly form - While still in its beginning stages, this is the very life support system that will carry your child throughout his or her life.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php

You can "rationalize" abortion all day long, but at the end of the day, you are still killing kids as a means of birth control.

Pretty sick, if you ask me.

[Deadshot]

I'm adopted, I would love it if people would adopt more. That said, what's funny about this argument is that those that are against abortion are teh first to say that we don't need Welfare or other programs to help single mothers.

It's a sad circle of bullshit that has led us to this place. Stop abortions, IF you can help the person who's preggers. Otherwise keep the status quo.

[Osborn F. Enready]

WndRtch said:
Isn't that the purpose of this law? To change it so a baby in eutero can be protected from Mom murdering it?

The FETUS has no right to life, and it lives at the mercy of, eats through, shits through and breathes through the mother, through a CONNECTION that makes that child a part of her body, though seperate from her. It is living parasiticly, has no claim to "murder".

WndRtch said:
After all, isn't our Constitution predicated on the idea that our laws protect the weak?

The weak who are PERSONS, LEGAL ENTITIES, NATURAL RIGHTS HOLDING, BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZENS.

The unborn have no claim to life, as they are not yet responsible for their own. They live at the permission and ability of the mother, both of which can be revoked at any time by choice or circumstance. (natural abortion or miscarriage)

WndRtch said:
Sorry, but this is a person to me.

Nice appeal to emotion and use of props to make up for the lack of logic in the argument you present here.

However, it doesn't change the facts. Its a fetus, that lives, eats, breathes, and shits through another living, natural rights holding PERSON whose rights supercede any claim an unborn could postulate on any predicate based in logic.


Wndrtch said:
You can "rationalize" abortion all day long, but at the end of the day, you are still killing kids as a means of birth control.

Pretty sick, if you ask me.

Firstly, I didn't ask you.(just being honest)

Secondly, its the mothers choice, the mothers privacy, the mothers rights, the mothers life at stake here, not mine, yours or anyone elses that is affected by this decision, except through emotion. You have no right to sue over hurt feelings, and you have no

Thirdly, the United States is based on individual ownership, individual rights, and the legal recognition of natural rights for BORN persons. A non-born, potential person has no claim to any rights, much less, moreso than the mother has full legal rights of her own body and what it contains that is not foreign. This law only works to weaken and/or remove full rights from women over their own body, and the laws implications would be devastating, especially in cases where women were so against delivering a child they resort to hunger strike. That would then be abject force used against the woman to either forcefully remove the fetus, or force-feed and restrain her.

Sounds like fascism to me, but so does a lot of the religious take on societies and individuals roles in life.


Deadshot said:
I'm adopted, I would love it if people would adopt more.

So would I, and I don't advocate abortion over adoption.

Deadshot said:
That said, what's funny about this argument is that those that are against abortion are teh first to say that we don't need Welfare or other programs to help single mothers.

I don't see why they have anything to do with each other.

Single mothers are a product of their choices, good or bad, willful or circumstantial.

Wealth Resdistribution programs, like welfare, etc, are programs that use force to steal from the labor of all people who pay taxes, to help people who make bad choices continue to live as they do.

I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion when adoption is an option not reliant on local, state or federal funds. I am anti-forced wealth redistribution, which obviously means I am anti-taxation for any purpose but necessity of Constitutional government.

Deadshot said:
It's a sad circle of bullshit that has led us to this place. Stop abortions, IF you can help the person who's preggers. Otherwise keep the status quo.

Both parties exhibit the highest form of hypocrisy with regularity, and both talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on which way the political wind is blowing.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
sorry, incorrect view.....they had rights recognized under the law, the fallacy WAS the Roe v Wade decision when the mother's right of "privacy" became paramount.....an error we hope gets corrected......

Again, show me where the Constitution, Bill of Rights or hell, even the Declaration of Independence speaks on fetus rights? Oh, thats right, they don't.

[Wndrtch]

The FETUS has no right to life

What are you talking about? A fetus is the first stage of human life.


it lives at the mercy of, eats through, shits through and breathes through the mother, through a CONNECTION that makes that child a part of her body, though seperate from her. It is living parasiticly, has no claim to "murder".

How is that any different from an infant? An infant is still parasitic, and needs someone to feed it. An infant can't live on it's own, it needs mom. After all, what do you think those beautiful bosums are for, entertainment?

The weak who are PERSONS, LEGAL ENTITIES, NATURAL RIGHTS HOLDING, BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZENS.

Right, which is being ammended to also include a human fetus in development.

Whats the problem?

The unborn hhave no claim to life, as they are not yet responsible for their own.

Again, neither is an infant or toddler. Do you justify killing them off if they become inconvenient?

They live at the permission and ability of the mother

Again, the same is true for an infant or a toddler.

both of which can be revoked at any time by choice or circumstance. (natural abortion or miscarriage)

By choice only because of a bad, in-human law designed to protect selfishness.

Nice appeal to emotion and use of props to make up for the lack of logic in the argument you present here.

It's not a "prop", it's a child.

I though it was self explanitory. I guess I over-estimated you :nana:.

However, it doesn't change the facts. Its a fetus, that lives, eats, breathes, and shits through another living, natural rights holding PERSON whose rights supercede any claim an unborn could postulate on any predicate based in logic.

If it lives, it's a person and should be protected. If you want "choice" then choose "ribbed" or "smoothe" and wrap your weasle. Be responsible and chose right before you knock someone up. Don't kill a person out of poor judgement.

Firstly, I didn't ask you.(just being honest)

Ok, I'll rephrase that.

"that's sick!"

Secondly, its the mothers choice, the mothers privacy, the mothers rights, the mothers life at stake here, not mine, yours or anyone elses that is affected by this decision, except through emotion. You have no right to sue over hurt feelings, and you have no

The only Right that a mother shoulds have to kill her child, is if the pregnancy is putting her life in danger. Our Constitution allows one to preserve their life with deadly force if necissary.

Thirdly, the United States is based on individual ownership, individual rights, and the legal recognition of natural rights for BORN persons.

Where does it say in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independance, that the criterial for protection under the law, is based on being BORN? I may be wrong, but I don't recall the word "born" used in either document.

If you have that, please post it. I'd like to read it.

A non-born, potential person has no claim to any rights, much less, moreso than the mother has full legal rights of her own body and what it contains that is not foreign.

Only because of bad law that was never voted on in Congress.

This law only works to weaken and/or remove full rights from women over their own body,

Now whose being dramitic!

It does no such thing. She still has full rights over her body, and can even "chose" not to get pregnant by using one of a dozan birth-control tools at her disposal.

If she "choses" unwisely, then it she shouldn't have the right to kill the child as it wasn't the child's fault.


and the laws implications would be devastating, especially in cases where women were so against delivering a child they resort to hunger strike. That would then be abject force used against the woman to either forcefully remove the fetus, or force-feed and restrain her.

At least she would still be alive.

The child is dead, but not before being tortured for no reason.

Sounds like fascism to me, but so does a lot of the religious take on societies and individuals roles in life.

Who said anything about religion? My thoughts are predicated on my personal experiences as a father, and having seen my sons in-eutero. From the day we found out my wife was pregnant, they were children. Just because someone else doesn't want to be pregnant, doesn't change that fact.

I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion when adoption is an option not reliant on local, state or federal funds. I am anti-forced wealth redistribution, which obviously means I am anti-taxation for any purpose but necessity of Constitutional government.

How can you be "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion", when one of the choices IS abortion? :ponder:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
What are you talking about? A fetus is the first stage of human life.

Nobody here or anywhere that I have seen, is denying that.

It is not a legal person, a legal entity, an individual, nor does it have ANY natural individual rights as it exists ATTACHED TO AND DEPENDENT ON (parasiticly) to a host that DOES HAVE FULL LEGAL RIGHTS.

The rights of the living surpass the the rights of any unborn, or dead.

Point?

Wndrtch said:
How is that any different from an infant?

An infant is BORN, breathes air on its own, shits on its own, eats through its mouth and is a RECOGNIZED LEGAL ENTITY. There is no comparison legally, between a born infant, and a parasiticly dependent fetus.

Wndrtch said:
An infant is still parasitic, and needs someone to feed it.

No, its not parasitic at all.... please look up the word parasitic.

Parasitic: Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another.


An infant is DEPENDENT ON A RIGHTS BEARING, LEGAL GUARDIAN, and an INFANT IS A RIGHTS HOLDING, BORN, INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN THAT BEARS LEGAL RECOGNITION.

Wndrtch said:
An infant can't live on it's own, it needs mom.

Bullshit. An infant can be cared for by any living human being, relative, parents, or strangers. A fetus depends on ONE thing for life, the mother in which it lives THROUGH, and that CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT ONE OF TWO THINGS....

1) The will of the mother to remove the fetus for life support, or delivery.
2) FORCE used against the mother to remove her fetus against her will, which is what this law is trying to put forward..... the right of the state to use force against women in the "name of" protecting a fetus they have no claim on, no communication with, no right to speak for moreso than the mother.

Wndrtch said:
After all, what do you think those beautiful bosums are for, entertainment?

Breast feeding is an option, not mandatory. An infant can eat all sorts of formulas and foods, but a fetus can only eat and live THROUGH the mother based on her will, and ability, unless FORCE is used against her to try to remove that fetus against her will.

Wndrtch said:
Right, which is being ammended to also include a human fetus in development.

Whats the problem?

Your and others lack of understanding of where individual natural rights eminate from, and how illogical laws such as the one proposed uses the law to remove rights from living, breathing, rights holding legal persons and citizens.... namely the potential mothers.

Wndrtch said:
Again, neither is an infant or toddler.

Infants and Toddlers reside in the THE WORLD, not in the WOMB within a RIGHTS HOLDING PERSON.

Denial isn't serving you well here, nor your argument.

Wndrtch said:
Do you justify killing them off if they become inconvenient?

This has nothing to do with what I justify..... it has to do with where rights eminate from, and the FACT that this law would work directly against BORN FEMALE CITIZENS RIGHTS at any stage of their life, dependent on their pregnancy status.

The government, nor any group of people have the right to use government to remove rights from innocent people, which is exactly what this type of law does.

Wndrtch said:
Again, the same is true for an infant or a toddler.

Nonsense. Infants and Toddlers are not within the womb, and can be cared for by any legal guardian, family member or adoptive family.

Isn't this strawman of yours dead yet?

Wndrtch said:
By choice only because of a bad, in-human law designed to protect selfishness.


Here is the root of the matter from those who push forth such legislation. DENIAL OF SELF, DENIAL OF RIGHTS TO SELF OWNERSHIP, DENIAL OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY....

If you want the state to dictate what you may eat, when you may birth, etc, etc, etc.... you may want to move to a theocracy, China or some other similar fascist oriented place.

Thank you for being so honest in addressing the problem behind those who don't grasp what individual rights and responsibilities are, you clearly are an example of that in this debate.

Wndrtch said:
It's not a "prop", it's a child.

I though it was self explanitory. I guess I over-estimated you

Its a fetus, not a child. It has no rights, and your use was clearly an appeal to emotion to bolster a failing, illogical argument.

Wndrtch said:
If it lives, it's a person and should be protected.

Thats an opinion, and a biased one at that. I am betting you don't say that when its a criminal in question who has murdered many innocent people, right?

But they are persons.......

Silly.

Mankind is the biggest threat to other men, so it should come as no suprise that women reserve the right to kill their offspring before birth if they so choose due to the effects and choices in which it would affect THEIR life.

What a hypocrite Wndrtch, I expected more from you.....

Wndrtch said:
If you want "choice" then choose "ribbed" or "smoothe" and wrap your weasle. Be responsible and chose right before you knock someone up. Don't kill a person out of poor judgement.

This has nothing to do with birth control... as some birth control can fail and STILL put you in this position. Abortion is a last resort form of birth control, and its a mothers right over her own body, which outweigh ANY claim that could be raised by or in defense of the unborn.

Responsibility means PREVENTING AN UNWANTED BIRTH before or after conception.

Those that don't believe in abortion, have a right to choose other methods for themselves, but they have no right to deprive valid, proven methods for others simply because they "don't agree with it".

Wndrtch said:
Ok, I'll rephrase that.

"that's sick!"

So is your denial of logic, denial of individual rights, denial of our history of individual responsibility and obvious belief that womens rights are subserviant to the unborn.

Wndrtch said:
The only Right that a mother shoulds have to kill her child, is if the pregnancy is putting her life in danger. Our Constitution allows one to preserve their life with deadly force if necissary.

Thats your opinion. Only a woman can make a decision to birth or not, and it is not only on survival, it is also on quality of life before, during and after delivery. No person has a right to make that decision BUT HER, as its HER body, as is everything within it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
Where does it say in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independance, that the criterial for protection under the law, is based on being BORN? I may be wrong, but I don't recall the word "born" used in either document.

If you have that, please post it. I'd like to read it.


Surely....

From the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...ourselves, is clearly speaking of those born who are taking action to create and ratify new government. Posterity clearly refers to those born after those taking action.

Posterity: offspring or future generations, nothing in relation to the unborn....

Article II, Section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States......

Clearly defining what "persons" may hold office....

Atricle IV, Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Citizens are either BORN, or NATURALIZED.


Now, before the Constitution could be ratified, several states and citizens demanded individual rights be recognized in law, and clear limit should be assigned to the Federal Government and States to what point they may infringe or interact with the rights of individuals.

From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

These rights were written as, recognized as and ratified as UNALIENABLE:

Unalienable rights: fundamental rights belonging to people, which cannot be taken away.


Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Without a warrant backed by oath of affimation, no claim could be made of a pregnant womans body or fetus for any reasons.

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The fifth amendment prevents the government from forcing a woman to tell if she is pregnant, or not, as she has a right to claim the fifth to avoid being a witness against herself, and her doctoral rights to privacy are equally protected.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Before the state could lay any claim of protection in favor of the fetus, it would need a witness, an accuser and a review of how this information was obtained before a case could even be heard.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not all individual rights are enumerated, and individuals possess more than those enumerated, all deriving from one base right which is the right to life, and the other logical rights entailed for a rational living being to attain, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



So, let me sum this up.....

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. There is only ONE fundamental right (all the others are its logical corrolarries or consequences) which is a mans right to his OWN life.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action---which means: The freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life.

A fetus lives at the EXPENSE of the mothers right to life, and is a direct infringement to that womans rights. That fetus eats at the will of the mother, shits through the mother, breathes through the mother, in essence LIVING through and at the expense of the mother. No aspect of a fetus' life, is self-oriented. It exists at the will of the mother, and that mother has every right to exterminate, remove or deliver that life that LIVES DIRECTLY AT HER EXPENSE, and at the DISCRETION OF HER WILL.

Without the will of the mother to eat, that fetus would starve, hence its existence it TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY at the discretion, and DIRECT EXPENSE of the mothers rights to life.

Its really quite simple to understand, ASSUMING you know where individual natural rights eminate from.

Wndrtch said:
Only because of bad law that was never voted on in Congress.

Bullshit, that is a total opinion call exposed by your subjective term "bad". It has nothing to do with subjective opinion, it has to do with LOGICAL and OBVIOUS TRUTHS about where individual rights eminate from, and what is entailed to claim them.

Wndrtch said:
Now whose being dramitic!

Not I, just being honest if you have any idea on how to follow logical deduction.

Wndrtch said:
It does no such thing. She still has full rights over her body, and can even "chose" not to get pregnant by using one of a dozan birth-control tools at her disposal.

Abortion is a form of birth control, just a form of birth control for AFTER fertilization.
The only difference between the two forms of birth control is peoples perception and/or religious beliefs.

Birth Control is birth control, 1=1, logic is logic.

Wndrtch said:
If she "choses" unwisely, then it she shouldn't have the right to kill the child as it wasn't the child's fault.

The fetus has no say until birth. It exists and can be removed solely at the will and discretion of the mother at any time, with or without legal help. Making abortion legal only prevents innocent people from being held as criminals for exercising their natural right to birth control, and bodily sanctity, whether that control is before or after fertilization.

Wndrtch said:
At least she would still be alive.

That may not be her will if she can't have her rights, which this law is clearly infringing if passed. Life without liberty is slavery, so to most, it loses its value quite quickly.

Wndrtch said:
The child is dead, but not before being tortured for no reason.

Tortured? LOL... whatever.

It has no concept of life, or rights, or existence out of the womb, and has no claim on anything much less its own life which only exists at the will and generosity of another.

Wndrtch said:
Who said anything about religion?

Most of those pushing these types of Bills before lawmakers.

Wndrtch said:
My thoughts are predicated on my personal experiences as a father, and having seen my sons in-eutero. From the day we found out my wife was pregnant, they were children.

TO YOU.... Not to a mother who doesn't want them, or to a doctor who performs abortions by choice, nor to the law based on individual rights and self-responsibility.

Wndrtch said:
Just because someone else doesn't want to be pregnant, doesn't change that fact.

Just because you don't agree with womens rights over rights of the dead or unborn, doesn't make it fact. Just because you refuse to ADMIT that a fetus is a parasitic lifeform as opposed to a born, breathing, eating, LEGAL, CITIZEN with rights.

Wndrtch said:
How can you be "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion", when one of the choices IS abortion?

Its a matter of recognizing what a hypocrite is.

You are either pro-rights, or anti-rights, and abortion is clearly, logically, and legally a womans RIGHTS.

Supporting and standing for individual rights, does not mean you support, sanction or advocate any action that may be taken under a persons choices within their rights.
It means you TOLERATE the choices of others, while they TOLERATE the choices of you.

You can't have liberty without tolerance.

[tecoyah]

...That was a most excellent rebuttal, very impressive and compelling. I eagerly await the reply!

[davo]

I'm sure a large number of people across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are quite shocked at the intensity and polarization of abortion debates in America.

I used to share Osborn and Alonzo's view on the matter that religious groups who tried to criminalize abortions, no matter how soon after conception, were totally irrational and stupid, as an early foetus is not a sentient being. However, I gradually changed my perspective over time as I looked at other factors.

My first concern is that it's presented as solely a 'women's rights' issue. I thought the father should also at least have some say if his potential son/daughter gets aborted or not. Then there was also a concern that babies, or potential babies, are being treated as some sort of consumer product, and that the issue is marketed to women like they 'choose' to have a baby or not, as if it were an inanimate object or a pet. We tend to devalue the importance of the young to our society, due to a lifestyle of economic rationalism and consumerism, and this is really starting to show.

Going from Plato's 'noble lie' concept, some figures in religious establishments may not favor abortion for other reasons than they state publically. A social darwinist would recognize those who abort their young will have less chance of surviving, prospering or existing in the future, and I'm sure some religious leaders know this. Because they don't want to talk about social darwinism in public for obvious reasons, they'll use arguments that are obviously nuts, but emotional and spiritual, in order to convince people not to have abortions or use contraception.

Failure to understand this is why Europe may well end up an Islamic state in the near future.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Tecoyah said:
...That was a most excellent rebuttal, very impressive and compelling. I eagerly await the reply!

Thank you.

Davo said:
I'm sure a large number of people across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are quite shocked at the intensity and polarization of abortion debates in America.

I would certainly agree.

There are many reasons as to why we have become this divided however.

I greatly respect your arguments Davo, so I hope you take no personal insult at my replies as none are intended.

Davo said:
I used to share Osborn and Alonzo's view on the matter that religious groups who tried to criminalize abortions, no matter how soon after conception, were totally irrational and stupid, as an early foetus is not a sentient being.

My argument is not based on the fetus being, or not being a sentient being.
My argument is entirely based on individual rights, and the fact that we are the stewards of our own mind and bodies, and are responsible for our actions, regardless of subjectivism from any outside party, the choice lies with us as individuals as to how we claim that responsibility, rationalize our actions, and give meaning and value to our lives as individuals.

Davo said:
However, I gradually changed my perspective over time as I looked at other factors.

My first concern is that it's presented as solely a 'women's rights' issue. I thought the father should also at least have some say if his potential son/daughter gets aborted or not.

There is no law preventing potential mothers and fathers from reconciling some type of arrangement, if it is based in free will and volitional choice.

For example, if the sexual act took place under the pretense that would remove any "expectation" of birth or child-rearing, what expectation would a man have to make such demands of a woman and her body?

If birth control was used and failed, as is many cases of abortion due to human error or faulty products, what expectation of birth or child-rearing could be made?

In my view, the woman HAS to be the sole decider in the issue, as it is HER body that must endure all the sacrifice, all the hardship and all the effort from carrying, birthing and or aborting that fetus.

Davo said:
Then there was also a concern that babies, or potential babies, are being treated as some sort of consumer product, and that the issue is marketed to women like they 'choose' to have a baby or not, as if it were an inanimate object or a pet.

I disagree with this view. I am not saying no persons share that view, but it is rooted in irrational, illogical values and falls apart under logical scrutiny.

Having a child is a huge responsibility. For some people that financial, legal and emotional responsibility ends after 18 years, but for some who have special needs children or a variety of other afflicted children, that responsibility can last a lifetime. People who are not welcoming and ready for this challenge, should not embark on the journey in my opinion and only they can make the choice between adoption, abortion, etc.

We have seen in the past, when legal abortions aren't available, it only manifests itself in illegal abortions and women who didn't want children resenting their child, and the sacrifices necessary to maintain the well being of that child. Some women are so compelled to be rid of the stress, they deliver the child and dump it.

I would rather see a fetus aborted safely, legally and without harm to the mother, than child born and left to die in a dumpster, and a woman emotionally and societally scarred for life for the choices only she could make.

Davo said:
We tend to devalue the importance of the young to our society, due to a lifestyle of economic rationalism and consumerism, and this is really starting to show.

Again, I disagree. In order for me to support such an accusation I would have to see some serious data to support it.

There are as many reasons people have not to have children, as there are for people to have children.

I for example, would love to have a child. For me, there are many intrests, mainly carrying on the family name which is nearing extinction with myself and my brothers, neither of which have children. However, I have seen hard times and I have seen good, and until I can nearly assure my child a deserving education, healthcare, and financial start to life, I don't wish to assume that responsibility nor put an innocent child into a wildly uncertain future.

We all have our own reasons for having or not having kids.... so I find it hard to label and see connections between the things you mention and the results you allude to.

Davo said:
Going from Plato's 'noble lie' concept, some figures in religious establishments may not favor abortion for other reasons than they state publically. A social darwinist would recognize those who abort their young will have less chance of surviving, prospering or existing in the future, and I'm sure some religious leaders know this. Because they don't want to talk about social darwinism in public for obvious reasons, they'll use arguments that are obviously nuts, but emotional and spiritual, in order to convince people not to have abortions or use contraception.

Failure to understand this is why Europe may well end up an Islamic state in the near future.

Interesting perspective that I am sure I don't know enough of the details about to comment.

[Wndrtch]

It is not a legal person, a legal entity, an individual, nor does it have ANY natural individual rights as it exists ATTACHED TO AND DEPENDENT ON (parasiticly) to a host that DOES HAVE FULL LEGAL RIGHTS.

Actually, I just found out that it is a legal person

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

The rights of the living surpass the the rights of any unborn, or dead.

That's not enirely true. Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide for killing his wife and UNBORN child, under CA's law. There are roughly two dozen States with similar laws.

Regarding the dead, have you heard of something called a "Will"? A Will supercedes any living relative's wishes.


An infant is BORN, breathes air on its own, shits on its own, eats through its mouth and is a RECOGNIZED LEGAL ENTITY. There is no comparison legally, between a born infant, and a parasiticly dependent fetus.

An infant is still a parasite (according to your definition of "parasite"), because it still needs an adult to provide sustanance to it. And I showed you above that 24 States and a federal Law that recognises a fetus as a legal entity.

Again, if you don't want to be a Mommy, then don't get knocked-up.

No, its not parasitic at all.... please look up the word parasitic.

Parasitic: Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another.

I did.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed.

For something to be a parasite, it needs to be of a different species, AND be harmful.

A fetus is the same species and does not "harm" the mom.

So much for that argument, my friend.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAn infant is DEPENDENT ON A RIGHTS BEARING, LEGAL GUARDIAN, and an INFANT IS A RIGHTS HOLDING, BORN, INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN THAT BEARS LEGAL RECOGNITION.[/quote]

An infant is NOT a citizen. You become a citizen when you reach your 18th birthday.

It cannot own land.
It cannot be drafted.
It cannot sign legal documents on it's own.
It cannot vote Democrat (at least, not yet :nana:)

It is not a citizen. There is special law that extends protection from unnatural harm, but that's about it. And if you can pass a law protecting an infant from unnatural harm, you can also pass a law extending protection from unnatural harm for a fetus.

[Wndrtch]

Bullshit. An infant can be cared for by any living human being, relative, parents, or strangers. A fetus depends on ONE thing for life, the mother in which it lives THROUGH, and that CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT ONE OF TWO THINGS....

A fetus can become an infant at 21 weeks, which is half the "normal" time for human gestation.

One you can kill legally, the other you can't.

Breast feeding is an option, not mandatory. An infant can eat all sorts of formulas and foods, but a fetus can only eat and live THROUGH the mother based on her will, and ability, unless FORCE is used against her to try to remove that fetus against her will.

Not true. A fetus can also adapt to feed, if delivered prematurely. Trust me, I've had two premie children, and they both adapted just fine.

Your and others lack of understanding of where individual natural rights eminate from, and how illogical laws such as the one proposed uses the law to remove rights from living, breathing, rights holding legal persons and citizens.... namely the potential mothers.

Natural Rights eminate from "The Creator", but you said you didn't want to talk about religion, so therefore "rights" are whatever society deems them to be. If "We The People" choose to extend rights to the unborn, and offer protection as a result, then so be it. So let it be written, so let it be done.

If you want to talk about Rights "Endowed by our Creator", then you loose the argument right away, because it is well established in several texts that "The Creator" recognises life in the womb.

This has nothing to do with what I justify..... it has to do with where rights eminate from, and the FACT that this law would work directly against BORN FEMALE CITIZENS RIGHTS at any stage of their life, dependent on their pregnancy status.

Sorry but the right to be a guilt-free whore, does not, and should not supercede the right of a fetus to exist, once the growing process has begun. If truth be told, the gestation period for Humans is 15-18 years.

It is not a legal person, a legal entity, an individual, nor does it have ANY natural individual rights as it exists ATTACHED TO AND DEPENDENT ON (parasiticly) to a host that DOES HAVE FULL LEGAL RIGHTS.

The rights of the living surpass the the rights of any unborn, or dead.

That's not enirely true. Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide for killing his wife and UNBORN child, under CA's law. There are roughly two dozen States with similar laws.

Regarding the dead, have you heard of something called a "Will"? A Will supercedes any living relative's wishes.


An infant is BORN, breathes air on its own, shits on its own, eats through its mouth and is a RECOGNIZED LEGAL ENTITY. There is no comparison legally, between a born infant, and a parasiticly dependent fetus.

An infant is still a parasite, because it still needs an adult to provide sustanance to it. And I showed you above that 24 States and a federal Laww that recognises a fetus as a legal entity.

Again, if you don't want to be a Mommy, then don't get knocked-up.

No, its not parasitic at all.... please look up the word parasitic.

Parasitic: Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another.

I did.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed.

For something to be a parasite, it needs to be of a different species, AND be harmful.

A fetus is the same species and does not "harm" the mom.

So much for that argument, my friend.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAn infant is DEPENDENT ON A RIGHTS BEARING, LEGAL GUARDIAN, and an INFANT IS A RIGHTS HOLDING, BORN, INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN THAT BEARS LEGAL RECOGNITION.[/quote]

An infant is NOT a citizen. You become a citizen when you reach your 18th birthday.

It cannot own land.
It cannot be drafted.
It cannot sign legal documents on it's own.
It cannot vote Democrat (at least, not yet :nana:)

It is not a citizen. There is special law that extends protection from unnatural harm, but that's about it. And if you can pass a law protecting an infant from unnatural harm, you can also pass a law extending protection from unnatural harm for a fetus.

Bullshit. An infant can be cared for by any living human being, relative, parents, or strangers. A fetus depends on ONE thing for life, the mother in which it lives THROUGH, and that CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT ONE OF TWO THINGS....

A fetus can become an infant at 21 weeks, which is half the "normal" time for human gestation.

One you can kill legally, the other you can't.

Breast feeding is an option, not mandatory. An infant can eat all sorts of formulas and foods, but a fetus can only eat and live THROUGH the mother based on her will, and ability, unless FORCE is used against her to try to remove that fetus against her will.

Not true. A fetus can also adapt to feed, if delivered prematurely. Trust me, I've had two premie children, and they both adapted just fine.

Your and others lack of understanding of where individual natural rights eminate from, and how illogical laws such as the one proposed uses the law to remove rights from living, breathing, rights holding legal persons and citizens.... namely the potential mothers.

Natural Rights eminate from "The Creator", but you said you didn't want to talk about religion, so therefore "rights" are whatever society deems them to be. If "We The People" choose to extend rights to the unborn, and offer protection as a result, then so be it. So let it be written, so let it be done.

If you want to talk about Rights "Endowed by our Creator", then you loose the argument right away, because it is well established in several texts that "The Creator" recognises life in the womb.

This has nothing to do with what I justify..... it has to do with where rights eminate from, and the FACT that this law would work directly against BORN FEMALE CITIZENS RIGHTS at any stage of their life, dependent on their pregnancy status.

Sorry but the right to be a guilt-free whore, does not, and should not supercede the right of a fetus to exist, once the growing process has begun. If truth be told, the gestation period for Humans is 15-18 years.

The government, nor any group of people have the right to use government to remove rights from innocent people, which is exactly what this type of law does.

"Innocent"? What are you talking about? Getting knocked-up when you don't want to be a mommy is neglagence. Then, out of selfishness, you kill the kid growing inside you.

That's far from innocent.

Nonsense. Infants and Toddlers are not within the womb, and can be cared for by any legal guardian, family member or adoptive family.

And what does that have to do with anything? So what, they can be cared for by another. Whoopty-do! How does that change anything?

The development of a human to maturity (adulthood) takes place from concemption/implantation, up to the 18th year (roughly). Stopping that process unnaturally at any point in that development timefram, is murder, unless the Mom's life is in jeapardy.

Isn't this strawman of yours dead yet?

Not by a long shot, because a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a tennager, and an adult are all human beings. They are at different stages of development, but they are human beings none the less. To kill one off, at any stage, should be a crime.

Again, if a fetus was just tissue, then you wouldn't hear stories about premature births.


If you want the state to dictate what you may eat, when you may birth, etc, etc, etc.... you may want to move to a theocracy, China or some other similar fascist oriented place.

I choose China, that way you can move next door. They have a fairly Liberal veiw on abortion. We can sing Kumb-bye-ya together under the smog-filled sky, and feast on Prongs cooked by a street vendor.

Thank you for being so honest in addressing the problem behind those who don't grasp what individual rights and responsibilities are, you clearly are an example of that in this debate.

And thank you, for examplifying a culture of death and selfishness.

[PostmodernProphet]

"Honey?....I went to the doctor today....I have good news!.....I have a parasite!".......

[Elrathin]

"Honey?....I went to the doctor today....I have good news!.....I have a parasite!".......

Congratulations !

[tecoyah]

Congratulations !


Fortunately....there is a cure.

[tecoyah]

"Honey?....I went to the doctor today....I have good news!.....I have a parasite!".......

As seems par for the course....you have resorted to emotional response, while the Pro-Choice side of this debate has mostly avoided such foolishness.

This is why these debates devolve into useless diatribe...typical Pro-Life endgame.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Tecoyah...

Neither Wndrtch nor PMP can debate this logicly or honestly..... rights from the "creator"......

LOL

[Alonzo]

To be fair, a parasite isn't as nearly as costly as a fetus. Never seen a parasite rack up 200+ thousand in debt.

[PostmodernProphet]

As seems par for the course....you have resorted to emotional response, while the Pro-Choice side of this debate has mostly avoided such foolishness.



lets be honest....it just makes you uncomfortable when my posts remind you that it is a real life that ends....by calling it a parasite you can pretend you are actually doing something good for somebody by letting them kill their first child.....it helps you pretend you don't have blood on your hands.....

[Alonzo]

lets be honest....it just makes you uncomfortable when my posts remind you that it is a real life that ends....by calling it a parasite you can pretend you are actually doing something good for somebody by letting them kill their first child.....it helps you pretend you don't have blood on your hands.....

In a way I agree with you. The term "parasite" and "baby" to describe a fetus (or embryo) is inaccurate in that it adds an emotional element that takes away from the issue itself. Fetus is a neutral term, baby and parasite are not.

[PostmodernProphet]

... rights from the "creator"......

one can easily come to the same conclusion with no consideration at all for a creator.....

legally speaking there is no logical basis for distinguishing between a birthed child and an unborn child with respect to the issue of "person"-ness (I believe that is your preferred designation, is it not?........person?.....

in the most recent Supreme Court decision dealing with partial birth abortion the court expressed the opinion that "viability" is not a legitimate standard....

a fetus at stage X may have larger organs than a fetus at stage Y, but it isn't the size of organs that create "person-ness"....


in truth, science can tell us that there is no event which occurs during fetal development where you can say "aha!...yesterday it was not a person and today it is!"

there is a significant event however which would satisfy that requirement....conception.....the day, the moment, prior to conception there is no human life......there is merely a sperm cell and an egg....but once conception has occurred, the DNA of the new life is established, a human life.....

see?.....I didn't mention the creator once....

[PostmodernProphet]

In 2002 the federal government passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act....it passed unanimously......the law provided that if an infant were delivered alive during an abortion procedure, the medical personnel had an obligation under the law to help the infant survive....Barbara Boxer, one of the strongest defenders of abortion had no objection to the act and supported it.....

In March of 2001 the Illinois state legislature considered a similar statute...it was sent to the floor by the Judiciary Committee with only one negative vote......on the floor debate only one Senator spoke against the act, stating that life protection extended to any preterm babies could jeopardize abortion rights.....when the vote occurred one senator voted "present".....

this state senator was Obama......

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/aborted-alive/

[Wndrtch]

As seems par for the course....you have resorted to emotional response, while the Pro-Choice side of this debate has mostly avoided such foolishness.

This is why these debates devolve into useless diatribe...typical Pro-Life endgame.

LOL! What thread are U folowing?

The "pro-choice" side is just screaming "it's a parasite, It's a parasite" without knowing what a parasite is.

I also argued that a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a teenager, an adult, are all stages of human development. To terminate at any point during any of the developmental stages, should be murder.

I also argued that a fetus can survive as we can deliver children pre-term, as early as 21 weeks. So, a fetus that is delivered say at 23 weeks is protected, but a fetus still in the womb at the same 23 can be murdered without punishment.

Sorry tecoya, I know you like to ride "bare-back", but if you don't want to be a parent, then be responsible and "chose" birth control before you knock her up. Then you don't have to worry about killing anything.

[Wndrtch]

I agree Tecoyah...

Neither Wndrtch nor PMP can debate this logicly or honestly..... rights from the "creator"......

LOL

What a bone-head! You were the one to bring up "Natural Rights", not me. I even responded by saying if you don't want consider the religion angle, then Natural Rights are whatever a society decides it to be.

But you never responded to that , did you.

[tecoyah]

lets be honest....it just makes you uncomfortable when my posts remind you that it is a real life that ends....by calling it a parasite you can pretend you are actually doing something good for somebody by letting them kill their first child.....it helps you pretend you don't have blood on your hands.....

I will be (an usually am) quite honest. Abortion does indeed make me uncomfortable, and I likely would not choose such a course for my family. I will also agree that a fetus is absolutely alive...but then, so was the cow my steak was pulled from. I don't remember calling anything a parasite, but I suppose you felt it appropriate to place words in my mouth for effect...so be it.
I am not doing anyone a good turn, nor a bad one....I am merely supporting individual freedoms, and I am pretty sure this country is supposed to do so. When you begin calling an aborted fetus a child, and start with the whole "Blood on Hands" thing....you make any further useful debate with you unlikely, but then again I have seen this replayed a thousand times to the same end result.....here I'll save some time:

Me- I don't think a fetus is a person
You- A fetus is a human being, with human DNA
Me- It has no brain and so cant think
You- It feels pain, science has proven it
Me- Thought defines the human species as something other than animal
You- Its alive and human
Me- yes, but what makes it more important than the mother
You- Its Murder!!!
Me- Not according to legal definitions
You- You are going to HELL!
Me- I take it....you will not be there?
You-....of course not, God loves me
Me- OK, That works for me

[PostmodernProphet]

.here I'll save some time:

would have made more sense if you had responded to the questions I raised instead of the one's you wished I had raised.....

I will also agree that a fetus is absolutely alive...but then, so was the cow my steak was pulled from.so in your view an unborn fetus is as removed from being human as a cow is?

I don't remember calling anything a parasite, but I suppose you felt it appropriate to place words in my mouth for effect...so be it.I responded to Osborn's use of the word....you chose to step in and defend it.....if you didn't agree you could have stayed out of it.....

Me- Thought defines the human species as something other than animalis it your position then that if a person loses his ability to think he becomes something other than a human and loses all rights?....

Me- yes, but what makes it more important than the mothercompare rights with rights.....life of fetus, life of mother is one thing......life of fetus, nine months pregnancy for the mother is another.....do you believe a woman has a right to not be pregnant?.......if so, is that right waived by having unprotected sex?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
To be fair, a parasite isn't as nearly as costly as a fetus. Never seen a parasite rack up 200+ thousand in debt.

Once again, nobody called a fetus a parasite. I correctly stated that a fetus "LIVES PARASITICLY", which is nothing like labeling something "a" parasite.

PMP knows this, I have clearly shown him his problems with interpreting the English language as written, but it is still thrown out for emotional appeal and covering logical holes in his argument.

PMP said:
lets be honest....it just makes you uncomfortable when my posts remind you that it is a real life that ends....by calling it a parasite you can pretend you are actually doing something good for somebody by letting them kill their first child.....it helps you pretend you don't have blood on your hands.....

Once again PMP, read the answer I just typed to Alonzo above. The argument was nothing about a fetus "being"(to be) "a" parasite. The argument was that the fetus "lives parasiticly"(An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of.)

The fact that I have to keep explaining this to you speaks volumes of the depth of your intellectual dishonesty on the topic. Once again, thank you for exposing your hand so clearly.


Alonzo said:
In a way I agree with you. The term "parasite" and "baby" to describe a fetus (or embryo) is inaccurate in that it adds an emotional element that takes away from the issue itself. Fetus is a neutral term, baby and parasite are not.

Fetus is the term used by me to describe what is being aborted.
Parasiticly describes the WAY in which the fetus lives, not the fetus itself.

BABY is entirely a false emotional appeal and ignores the reality of the fetus' existence.


PMP said:
one can easily come to the same conclusion with no consideration at all for a creator.....

legally speaking there is no logical basis for distinguishing between a birthed child and an unborn child with respect to the issue of "person"-ness (I believe that is your preferred designation, is it not?........person?.....

That is complete fabrication PMP, and you base it on the bi-partisan courts findings which are clearly religiously biased, as our country has been for many years.

I have clearly demostrated my entire argument, which you fail to logicly refute, in parcel or total.


PMP said:
in the most recent Supreme Court decision dealing with partial birth abortion the court expressed the opinion that "viability" is not a legitimate standard....

a fetus at stage X may have larger organs than a fetus at stage Y, but it isn't the size of organs that create "person-ness"....

That is because the argument was not MADE CORRECTLY. It has nothing to do with the size of the organs, and that argument is logicly flawed.

The issue is the WAY in which a fetus' exists, the FACT that a fetus exists solely at the will of the mother (an option exists) who is a full rights holding citizen who owns and has full control over her mind, body and property. The state has no logical means of reasonably enforcing this law as proposed without directly infringing the rights and bodily sanctity of the women involved.

PMP said:
in truth, science can tell us that there is no event which occurs during fetal development where you can say "aha!...yesterday it was not a person and today it is!"

Yes, you can. At one moment it lives through a feeding and waste tube, and at another moment it breathes through its lungs, and functions as a BORN individual person that exists OUTSIDE the womb of a rights holding woman.

Are you trying to tell me that Science doesn't recognize it has to use special equipment to see that fetus before it is born, since they have to look INSIDE a living, rights holding legal person? Show me a respected scientist that will attest to such nonsense.

PMP said:
there is a significant event however which would satisfy that requirement....conception.....the day, the moment, prior to conception there is no human life......there is merely a sperm cell and an egg....but once conception has occurred, the DNA of the new life is established, a human life.....

Yes, a human life with no rights until birth. A human life that exists solely at the will and ability of one person, the mother, can provide, or not.

PMP said:
see?.....I didn't mention the creator once....

.... and its as easily logically parsed, summarily destroyed and left in pieces on the floor.

Wndrtch said:
LOL! What thread are U folowing?

The "pro-choice" side is just screaming "it's a parasite, It's a parasite" without knowing what a parasite is.

So now you have reading and comprehension issues also?

I did not at any time, label a fetus "a" "parasite". I correctly stated that a fetus lives PARASITICLY. There is no comparison if you wish to debate with intellectual honesty, so please drop this from your argument.

Wndrtch said:
I also argued that a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a teenager, an adult, are all stages of human development. To terminate at any point during any of the developmental stages, should be murder.

You correctly state that all of those are stages of human development. HOWEVER, you fail to recognize or address the significant difference of transformation that occurs when the fetus is IN THE WOMB, as compared to when it is OUT OF THE WOMB and SEVERED from the mother.

Again, a step toward intellectual dishonesty that is noticed and not appreciated.

Wndrtch said:
I also argued that a fetus can survive as we can deliver children pre-term, as early as 21 weeks.

If done by the WILL of the mother, yes you can. If done without, or AGAINST her will, requires either force, or a woman who is not in control of her mind and/or body.

Wndrtch said:
So, a fetus that is delivered say at 23 weeks is protected, but a fetus still in the womb at the same 23 can be murdered without punishment.

Yes, or so it should be. Only the person carrying the fetus can determine what is in her and her potential childs best intrest until that fetus is birthed.

Wndrtch said:
Sorry tecoya, I know you like to ride "bare-back", but if you don't want to be a parent, then be responsible and "chose" birth control before you knock her up. Then you don't have to worry about killing anything.

And again, another detraction from debate, a total fabrication of character assasination.

Shame on you Wndrtch, my respect for your debate is lowering with every reply in this thread.

Wndrtch said:
What a bone-head! You were the one to bring up "Natural Rights", not me. I even responded by saying if you don't want consider the religion angle, then Natural Rights are whatever a society decides it to be.

But you never responded to that , did you.

You have proven clearly you have no idea where natural rights eminate from, or on what logical basis they rest considering the views of the forefathers, and you have seemingly also demonstrated you have your mind made up and wish to ignore anything presented that contradicts your obviously firmly held beliefs.

PMP said:
I responded to Osborn's use of the word....you chose to step in and defend it.....if you didn't agree you could have stayed out of it.....

Yet again, you pull this entire fabrication up as a valid argument.....

You didn't respond to my use of the word at all. You responded to a mis-perception of what was stated, oddly enough, the same problem most of our current bi-partisan hacks have when reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Did you people pass 8th grade English classes?

PMP said:
compare rights with rights.....life of fetus, life of mother is one thing......life of fetus, nine months pregnancy for the mother is another.....do you believe a woman has a right to not be pregnant?.......if so, is that right waived by having unprotected sex?

What a mish-mash of false assumptions....

Does the mother have a right to NOT DELIVER a fetus that lives at her expense, within her, is the question. Yes, she has that right.

Then, you assume every pregnancy is a result of UN-protected sex, completely ignoring the factor of human error in protection usage, the number of product failures, etc....

IS there anyone that wishes to debate this issue with a shred of intellectual honesty from your side of the argument?

[PostmodernProphet]

I have clearly demostrated my entire argument

I'm sorry, but your argument sucks.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you trying to tell me that Science doesn't recognize it has to use special equipment to see that fetus before it is born, since they have to look INSIDE a living, rights holding legal person? Show me a respected scientist that will attest to such nonsense.

ah, so now the moment of "person-ness" isn't birth, it's the moment the child can be seen without special equipment.....

[PostmodernProphet]

HOWEVER, you fail to recognize or address the significant difference of transformation that occurs when the fetus is IN THE WOMB, as compared to when it is OUT OF THE WOMB and SEVERED from the mother.

that significant difference being, that Osborn stamps it on the forehead with a rubber stamp that says "Person with rights!"........

[PostmodernProphet]

You have proven clearly you have no idea where natural rights eminate from,

rights come from the law..........

[PostmodernProphet]

Then, you assume every pregnancy is a result of UN-protected sex, completely ignoring the factor of human error in protection usage, the number of product failures, etc....
insignificant percentage.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

The level of denial you exhibit is astronomical PMP, I think I will stop debating the issue with you.

[PostmodernProphet]

do you think it is significant that everyone that has ever debated with you on this issue has disagreed with your approach to "rights"?.........

[Mark L Hamburger]

This amendment won't pass, so it doesn't really matter, but there are far broader consequences than outlawing all abortions, if it were to pass.

A proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would define a human egg as a "person" from the moment of fertilization would go far beyond its intended purpose of outlawing practically all abortions.

Philosophers may debate when human life begins, but scientists are unanimous on the subject of when pregnancy begins: it's when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus.

But the proposed Amendment 48 specifies that the egg be considered a "person" in the eyes of the law even before it is implanted in the uterus. That means, effectively, that those forms of birth control that prevent such implantation would be classified as homicide under the proposal.

Even without the use of drugs, many eggs just naturally fail to implant in the uterus. Likewise, many eggs are implanted only to result in a miscarriage in the early days or weeks of pregnancy — often before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. Should a woman who suffers a miscarriage be charged with negligent homicide because she failed to protect a fertilized egg she may not have even known she carried? Should a man who fertilized an egg be entitled to file a civil lawsuit against a woman who miscarries, charging her with the wrongful death of his week-old fertilized egg?

Unfortunately, none of these possibilities is far-fetched. They would be the almost certain results of the mischievous interaction of the proposed Colorado constitutional amendment with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

...

If a fertilized egg is a person, just what are that egg's rights under Colorado law? The question is anything but hypothetical, because the entire abortion debate that culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision rests upon that language in the 14th Amendment. If the fetus is a person under the law, its life cannot be taken without due process, which means states can outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade answered that question by defining a fetus as a person only in the third trimester of a pregnancy, during which it could conceivably live independently outside of the womb. Thus, under Roe v. Wade, abortions can be banned in the third trimester, as long as exceptions are made for the life or health of the other "person" in the equation, the mother.

But by pushing the definition of "personhood" to fertilization, the proposed Colorado amendment creates an absurd and unworkable maze. What about women who have difficulty conceiving and try in vitro fertilization. Typically, a number of fertilized embryos are created and frozen. Once pregnancy occurs, the superfluous embryos are often discarded. But under the Colorado "eggs are people" law, that would be murder.

Amendment 48 goes far beyond banning abortion and many forms of birth control. It is legal mischief and should be solidly rejected by the voters in November.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9449135

What I don't get is why the majority of pro-lifers are Christian males. This isn't a political issue, it is a religious issue, and the government has no right to even be involved.

[PostmodernProphet]

What I don't get is why the majority of pro-lifers are Christian males.

source?.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
do you think it is significant that everyone that has ever debated with you on this issue has disagreed with your approach to "rights"?.........

Firstly, your wrong. Usually the only people who disagree are those on the "other side of the argument", meaning those who are religiously afflicted, and see rights coming from some "holy being" as opposed to in reality, from nature.

Secondly, it doesn't suprise me that those who disagree with my views are usually religious people or holy rollers blinded by their own subjective faith, from grasping evident, obvious and logical reality because it contradicts their fairy tale books.

[AlanC]

This statement kind of caught my eye....

Usually the only people who disagree are those on the "other side of the argument", meaning those who are religiously afflicted, and see rights coming from some "holy being" as opposed to in reality, from nature.

I don't see how you can argue that any "right" comes from nature. The only "rights" we have from nature are those we are strong enough to gain and keep.

"Rights" is a concept. The framers declared certain rights to be intrinsic to all human beings because and only because they eminated from a creator. They argued that because they came from a power higher than ourselves, government was obligated to respect and perserve them.

If you remove that concept, you are left with only a concept that will exist at the whim of government or those rights that government is willing to grant you. If our rights come from government, they can be taken away by government as well.

And once the government is involved in the decision making process of defining our "rights", in each of those instances, the granting of a right to someone, takes a right away from someone else.

For example, if you have an unaltered right to life, I lose my right to kill to save my own. If on the other hand, I have a right to self defense, you may lose your right to life if you attack me.

If you have the right to peace and quiet, I may lose my right to express myself noisily. If you have the right to own property, I may lose my right to tavel and pitch my tent where I want to.

For the past 40 years, this society has chosen to grant the right to life to only those members who first meet some critieria of being born. But that has been a decision of government.

I would think as a Libertarian, you would support getting the Federal Government out of that decision and support the idea of it being determined on a local or state level with each community free to follow its own conscience in the matter.

[Deadshot]

How is the government in the "decision" concerning Abortion? Aren't they only saying that it's legal?

[AlanC]

How is the government in the "decision" concerning Abortion? Aren't they only saying that it's legal?

They are now. Some individual state governments used to say it was not. That makes it a decision of government. In our current case, the SCOTUS has determined that a woman has a right to an abortion. In the future they may decide that no such Federal right exists and leave it up to the states once more.

As I said, what the government grants one day, they can take away the next.

[PostmodernProphet]

How is the government in the "decision" concerning Abortion? Aren't they only saying that it's legal?

obviously, whether they say it is legal or illegal, they are involved in the process.....

meaning those who are religiously afflicted, and see rights coming from some "holy being" as opposed to in reality, from natureboth views are wrong....in practice, one has no rights at all unless the law permits them to be enforced......

it doesn't matter whether you say a black person had a right to freedom in the 19th century which came from a holy being or came from nature....until the law "recognized" that right and provided for a means of enforcing it that person had no rights at all......

likewise you can argue all you want that a fetus doesn't have rights under some "natural" cause....if the law grants them rights they will have rights and if the law doesn't grant them rights they will have none.....

that being said there is no logical basis upon which the law can distinguish between the born and the unborn....therefore, if thy grant rights to one, they ought to grant rights to the other.....

what is the point at which a child is "born"?.....is it when his head emerges?.......when his nose is clear?......his knees?.....the last tip of his toe?.......the knotting of the umbilical?.....the severing of the umbilical?......the first slap?......the first cry".......when does nature imbue him with his rights?.........

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alan said:
I don't see how you can argue that any "right" comes from nature. The only "rights" we have from nature are those we are strong enough to gain and keep.

Exactly, which are the ones I am talking about.

I am born with a voice box, and an ability to change that voice, therefore I am naturally granted a right to free speech, a right to assemble with those of like mind, a right to petition what I find wrong, and a right to praise what I find right, a right to record my thoughts, ideas and observations in a manner I so choose that do not infringe on the rights of others.

I am born with a mind that controls my every action, be it on impulse compelled by emotion, or be it rationally conceived and planned thoughts, which means logicly I AM THE ONLY ONE who can be held accountable for MY actions, hence the right to self ownership, self-responsibility for our actions, by nature.

I am born with a desire to live or die that only I can ponder, reflect or enunciate, therefore I have control over my own life or death, yet another natural logical backer to the concept of self-ownership, as well as the concept of self-defense, as only I can act when my life is in danger, and only I can prevent it from being taken by force by using force of my own against those who focus unjust force upon me.

I am born with an ABILITY to create, to build, to conceive, all of which lend to the logical rational right of self-sustinence, and being able to keep the products of my own labor made from my own, or unowned resources.

I am born as any other man, into a world limited by natural law, rendered by natural law and exist within nature, while of course beliefs of how we got here are individual choice opinions (religion), the fact is we are here, now and limited by nature, and nature is mans most formidable opponent other than fellow men on this or any planet we yet know of.
This being so, I have the right to afford myself happiness to the level at which I can attain by my own means and methods, with mutual respect to the equal rights of others born into the same predicament. They have no claim on my life, and I have no claim on theirs, and we all have a right to afford ourselves the best life, the happiest life (based on individual views) that we can individually afford of our own means.

Alan said:
"Rights" is a concept. The framers declared certain rights to be intrinsic to all human beings because and only because they eminated from a creator.

Nonsense, and if you read the debates you will see that is nonsense, which is why NATURES god was used in the declaration.

Alan said:
They argued that because they came from a power higher than ourselves, government was obligated to respect and perserve them.

At that time, that recognition (Magna Carta) was a huge step for the largely religious doctrine (enforce with abject force by the church or kings who claimed rule on men), but our forefathers saw the evil such religious bias could present, hence the FREEDOM OF RELIGION clause. No religion holds moral sway over law, or men in the United States as our system was drafted.

Among philosophers, Rand was the most accurate and the most in depth about this explanation and tie between natural rights, and rights as defined in our nations legal social contract between people and its SELF-created government.

Alan said:
If you remove that concept, you are left with only a concept that will exist at the whim of government or those rights that government is willing to grant you.

I don't see it that way, nor do many Constitutional scholars or philosophers. It may well be that way if it were not for the awakening of the people that they are their OWN keepers (not some generic god as would be required to gain mass support, or some specific god which would alienate much support, as well as both having obvious problems with logically demanding individuals) hence their FORCEFUL seperation of church and state during the revolution. (examine the role of the tithe in the Revolution from England.)

Alan said:
If our rights come from government, they can be taken away by government as well.

I know this, which is why I have and always will argue that no government can trump natural individual rights, by any claim of authority that rests in ignorance of those rights.
Many have and many will continue to try, but as long as the idea of individual liberty lives within the minds of men and the value of self is indeed self-evident, tyrannical authoritarian collectivism can't win without nearly assured self-extinction....meaning nobody wins.

Alan said:
And once the government is involved in the decision making process of defining our "rights", in each of those instances, the granting of a right to someone, takes a right away from someone else.

The people in charge are JURYS, and the jury can over-ride any law in a Constitutional court except the Supreme Court. The jury can willfully exercise its will in cases where though a person broke a written and recorded law, they deem the law itself at fault and find the actions of the person in question, justified or within their rights.

The Supreme Court is obviously not a jury court, but it was intended to remain free from the evils of partisanship, one of the first missions and accomplishments of the Bi-Partisan monopoly on power that has existed for the last 158 years was overtaking the Supreme Court through exclusive bi-partisan appointment and approval.

Alan said:
For example, if you have an unaltered right to life, I lose my right to kill to save my own.

Which version are you talking about being altered, and non-altered? Example?

Alan said:
If on the other hand, I have a right to self defense, you may lose your right to life if you attack me.

Its a given. The right to a mans life exists only in the capacity that they don't project force against others. Our system is based on the self and self responsibility for ones own actions. While recognizing that reasonable men will choose to utilize peaceful means and methods to achieve their resolving of dispute, there is of course the individual factor which must be recognized, which is that not all men are rational at all times, and some are rarely rational. While all being true, its obvious that the overwhelming majority of the world is usually quite rational.

If someone doesn't recognize my right to life and property, they may be forced to recognize my right to self-defense, in summation.


Alan said:
If you have the right to peace and quiet, I may lose my right to express myself noisily.

Exactly, which is why all people have a right to find a place that suits their needs and many choices should be available based on how many there are that share those values.
Values less in common with others, will have smaller places to enjoy their values amongst like minds, and people will have to individually balance what values are important enough to them to compel them to find a place that suits them vs the cost of doing so.
That was the beauty of the idea with a strong states rights in relation to the federal union, as it allowed 50 states with different laws, different values to the point of all having a common bond of the value of individual rights, for people to seek happiness.
With 50 states making their own decisions, the entire system is not hurt as bad by bad decisions in leadership of the state. Problems are fairly isolated, and the competition between states allows people choices, as well as showing which systems work best for certain limiting factors.(market, citizens, governance)

Alan said:
If you have the right to own property, I may lose my right to tavel and pitch my tent where I want to.

Obviously, and land as well as resources are finite, but that is the reality of the natural situation we face.

Alan said:
For the past 40 years, this society has chosen to grant the right to life to only those members who first meet some critieria of being born. But that has been a decision of government.

No, it has and always will be a decision of individuals, regardless of what laws state. There were abortions before it was legal, while it is legal, and will be after they are illegal again if they are made so. The only thing that changes is how society PUNISHES a person for making decisions that affect THEIR OWN LIVES, which they have every right to do when life comes from within a rights holding citizens body.

Alan said:
I would think as a Libertarian, you would support getting the Federal Government out of that decision and support the idea of it being determined on a local or state level with each community free to follow its own conscience in the matter.

It would be a vote of slavery, influenced by non-scientific, subjective matter, originating in majority in religion. I couldn't support that at all, no matter how it is presented.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
that being said there is no logical basis upon which the law can distinguish between the born and the unborn

False.

The obvious basis is the fact that the unborn resides within, at the will and ability of the mother entirely, as a non-contributing, non-rights holding entity, while a born child is BIRTHED out of the womb, and then SEVERED from its life support, the umbillical cord.

That is the relevant argument, as the unborn have no rights that outweigh the rights of the living.

[PatrickHenry]

Unborn is still living, Osborn...

[PostmodernProphet]

I am born as any other man, into a world limited by natural law, rendered by natural law and exist within nature, while of course beliefs of how we got here are individual choice opinions (religion), the fact is we are here, now and limited by nature, and nature is mans most formidable opponent other than fellow men on this or any planet we yet know of.
This being so, I have the right to afford myself happiness to the level at which I can attain by my own means and methods, with mutual respect to the equal rights of others born into the same predicament. They have no claim on my life, and I have no claim on theirs, and we all have a right to afford ourselves the best life, the happiest life (based on individual views) that we can individually afford of our own means.Osborn.....do the people born in Communist China or Pakistan live under a different natural law than you have?.....because they do not share the rights that you have.....

[PostmodernProphet]

....and by what phenomena did the laws of nature change in 1972 when women suddenly gained a right to terminate the life of an unborn fetus?.......was it the influence of a comet, perhaps?......a subtle solar flare?......

[Osborn F. Enready]

Patrick said:
Unborn is still living, Osborn...

Nobody denied, or is arguing that Patrick.

Plant are living, so are animals and insects, yet we crush, kill, destroy and consume those daily.

A fetus is a human stage of growth, the only stage that does not entail natural rights based on the FACT that it lives within a full rights holding citizen, and it has no ability, NONE to affect its own course of life if that course of life contradicts either the will, or the ability of the mother to provide that life, which exists solely on her will and ability.

PMP said:
Osborn.....do the people born in Communist China or Pakistan live under a different natural law than you have?.....because they do not share the rights that you have.....

They ACCEPT a different natural law, thanks to the force exhibited by their governments preventing them from living a life they may choose if not for that use of force.

Much as you are trying to impose that force against women to suit your subjective needs, through laws like this and support of laws like this. You attempt to use force to remove rights from the living, in favor of giving unearned rights to those who can lay no logical, natural or self-evident claim on them.

PMP said:
....and by what phenomena did the laws of nature change in 1972 when women suddenly gained a right to terminate the life of an unborn fetus?.......was it the influence of a comet, perhaps?......a subtle solar flare?......

A brief fluctuation in the religious views of the bi-partisan supreme court, a fluctuation both parties are working at removing to aid their own partisan view of authoritarianism.

[AlanC]

I am born with a voice box, and an ability to change that voice, therefore I am naturally granted a right to free speech, a right to assemble with those of like mind, a right to petition what I find wrong, and a right to praise what I find right, a right to record my thoughts, ideas and observations in a manner I so choose that do not infringe on the rights of others.

I don't agree that simply being born with some sort of ability confers onto anyone the natural right to use that ability. From birth, such actions will be subject to the modifications and laws we find around us, be they natural or man made. You have a brain and as such you have the right to learn and think as you would. But as soon as you begin to speak, all of your rights become at risk, expecially your right to life.

You are assumiing something here as it relates to modern thought and application, that all people have some sort of right to seek out those who think and act as they do. Which is fine, even if it avoids the obvious that some people don't have that freedom or right.

But then, to the purpose of this thread, you attempt to quantify who or when those rights attach. Therein lies a fallacy or at least a contradiction. You are arguing, if I understand you correctly that new life has no rights until it is severed physically from the birth mother by cutting its former means of life support. This mean that a mother could beat her fetus to death as long as she did it before the umbellical cord was cut and it would be alright. I find this to be logically unsustainable.


...as only I can act when my life is in danger, and only I can prevent it from being taken by force by using force of my own against those who focus unjust force upon me.

Only you can act? That's patently inaccurate as clearly someone else can act in your place just as you can choose to act to save the life of someone else.



I am born as any other man, into a world limited by natural law, rendered by natural law and exist within nature, while of course beliefs of how we got here are individual choice opinions (religion), the fact is we are here, now and limited by nature, and nature is mans most formidable opponent other than fellow men on this or any planet we yet know of.

You are born into a world limited by a whole lot more than natural law. Unless you are born on an isolated island, you are also born into a world that will be very much more restricted by the laws of man.




Among philosophers, Rand was the most accurate and the most in depth about this explanation and tie between natural rights, and rights as defined in our nations legal social contract between people and its SELF-created government.

And that is exactly the point. When this government was created, it was with the understanding that certain of our rights must be surrendered or modified to allow the Republic to function. Being born into that Republic, we are automatically brought into a world that has been altered from any natural state to accommodate that level of organization.


I know this, which is why I have and always will argue that no government can trump natural individual rights, by any claim of authority that rests in ignorance of those rights.
Many have and many will continue to try, but as long as the idea of individual liberty lives within the minds of men and the value of self is indeed self-evident, tyrannical authoritarian collectivism can't win without nearly assured self-extinction....meaning nobody wins.

But as we've already discussed, of course government can and does trump individual rights. Government, by design, becomes the arbiter and the definer and in some respects the defender of how individual rights are to be allowed to exist and interact with the rights of others.

The people in charge are JURYS, and the jury can over-ride any law in a Constitutional court except the Supreme Court. The jury can willfully exercise its will in cases where though a person broke a written and recorded law, they deem the law itself at fault and find the actions of the person in question, justified or within their rights.

You are wrong here as all of the various appellate courts have that ability. Many jury decisions are overturned and never see the light of day in the Supreme Court.

Even in a criminal trial, the presiding judge has the ability in most states to set aside a jury verdict that he believes is in clear conflict with the evidence presented.



Exactly, which is why all people have a right to find a place that suits their needs and many choices should be available based on how many there are that share those values.

You mean a value like protecting the life of unborn humans from indiscriminate termination? That kind of value. I agree. People should be able to exercise their right to live in such a community if others are of like mind.

Values less in common with others, will have smaller places to enjoy their values amongst like minds, and people will have to individually balance what values are important enough to them to compel them to find a place that suits them vs the cost of doing so.

I agree. But that is restricted if the Federal Government is free to define such things for the nation as a whole. This restricts both the right of choice and conscience.

That was the beauty of the idea with a strong states rights in relation to the federal union, as it allowed 50 states with different laws, different values to the point of all having a common bond of the value of individual rights, for people to seek happiness.
With 50 states making their own decisions, the entire system is not hurt as bad by bad decisions in leadership of the state. Problems are fairly isolated, and the competition between states allows people choices, as well as showing which systems work best for certain limiting factors.(market, citizens, governance)

Beautifully said. It is also the very essence of why the Federal Government should not be in the business of allowing or disallowing abortions.


No, it has and always will be a decision of individuals, regardless of what laws state. There were abortions before it was legal, while it is legal, and will be after they are illegal again if they are made so. The only thing that changes is how society PUNISHES a person for making decisions that affect THEIR OWN LIVES, which they have every right to do when life comes from within a rights holding citizens body.



You make such impassioned arguments for individual rights and the rights of people to make their own determinations and then you turn around and support a big government solution to impose your beliefs on everyone.

I will say it again, the Federal Government has no business being invovled in the abortion debate. It should have been left to the individual states to deal with.

[PostmodernProphet]

They ACCEPT a different natural law, thanks to the force exhibited by their governments preventing them from living a life they may choose if not for that use of force.

Much as you are trying to impose that force against women to suit your subjective needs, through laws like this and support of laws like this. You attempt to use force to remove rights from the living, in favor of giving unearned rights to those who can lay no logical, natural or self-evident claim on them.

A brief fluctuation in the religious views of the bi-partisan supreme court, a fluctuation both parties are working at removing to aid their own partisan view of authoritarianism.

obviously, the correct answer is that rights do NOT come from natural laws, but from the government in which a person lives.....a fluctuation in the laws of that government cause a complete change in rights, not a complete change in the "natural" law.......so, whether my side "uses force" to impose the rights of the unborn against the mother, or your side "uses force" to impose the rights of the mother against the unborn, the "force" being used is the law, which is the only source of rights.....

[tecoyah]

obviously, the correct answer is that rights do NOT come from natural laws, but from the government in which a person lives.....a fluctuation in the laws of that government cause a complete change in rights, not a complete change in the "natural" law.......so, whether my side "uses force" to impose the rights of the unborn against the mother, or your side "uses force" to impose the rights of the mother against the unborn, the "force" being used is the law, which is the only source of rights.....


This is truth, and logically sound. I am pleased the laws currently do not impose your will on my sisters.

[PostmodernProphet]

and I am sad that the laws currently impose your will on the 46 million dead since 1972......

[tecoyah]

and I am sad that the laws currently impose your will on the 46 million dead since 1972......


Dead what?

This is the crux of the debate...you have decided they are equal to a born human....and I have decided the lack of a brain (thought) makes them less worthy of rights than the adult human who has the ability to choose what she does with her own life.

My morality does not allow me to justify forcing my own opinions on a fellow citizen under these circumstances. This essay was tantamount to my reasoning, I recommend you read it if so inclined:

Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.

# By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm.

# By the end of the fourth week, it's about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception.

# By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs.

# By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.

# By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike.

# By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation.

# By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males f