Things I Learned from the GOP Debates...

Cypress said:
But, Roe is on a much stronger foundation. The implied right to personal privacy is found throughout the bill of rights. The right to privacy in your home, your papers, and your belongings. In addition, the 9th amendment states that americans indidual right are NOT just limited to those specifically addressed in the amendments. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the right to privacy in your home, your papers, and your belongings logically extends to your body.
Click to expand...

Your fallacy is believing that the right to privacy trumps murder. Can you kill your own child if you're in the privacy of your own home? No. That would be idiotic.
 
I have more respect for a person who opposes the termination of fetal life in any case save protection of life then someone who says its ok if its rape or incest.

Beware of those people. Those people subtlely think that becoming pregnant is a fault or a punishment for bad behavior. Thus the fact that it is the result of rape or incest 'excuses' the pregnancy.

If you're pro-life be pro-life. You can't say the unborn are human life and say that the circumstances of their creation negate those human rights.

Pro-choicers merely have a different opinion than me. I disagree but I fully understand. I don't care for people who mealy mouthily say 'except for rape or incest." This is just political expediency and makes me suspect them of being misogynistic.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Pro-choicers merely have a different opinion than me. I disagree but I fully understand. I don't care for people who mealy mouthily say 'except for rape or incest." This is just political expediency and makes me suspect them of being misogynistic.
Click to expand...

QFT!
 
uscitizen said:
Yep we have no rights at all. A darn Shame.
Click to expand...

No. we have some rights still. his idiocy is asserting that the right to privacy trumps the obligation to not kill children. This is very old, dishonest frame that was mostly abandoned in the early nineties. And oldie but a baddie.
 
Most pro-choicers do not see the unborn as having any right at all. So they would not be saying privacy trumps the right to life since they believe the right to life is not possessed by the unborn. They would say their right to privacy trumps the government's desire to control behavior.
 
Good statement IHG. :cheers:

I guess since the constitution is a legal document it all dempends on if unborn children are included into it as having rights. Lets see what terms does it applly to us ? "People" ? When does an egg become a "people"? Are rights for the unborn as assumed as roe vs wade ?


I am not sure on it, not a consititutional expert, just putting the argument forward for discussion.
 
Last edited:
Roe v. Wade did leave itself open to later interpretation. They said that personhood couldn't be protected before the third trimester based on current medical knowledge but that reexamination may be appropriate as more information comes out.

So Roe wouldn't necessarily need to be overturned in order to allow states to bar some earlier abortions if in court it is argues this requirement was met.
 
"You know what I think would make abortion more rare? Easy access to free birth control pills. If you have no health insurance, it costs you hundreds of dollars just to get in to see your doctor, and then you have to fill an expensive prescription every month."

A fair idea. I would extend it a bit further and include the morning after pill for women that have been raped.

Side note... a fetus is simply a reference to a STAGE in a childs development. Calling a child a fetus is simply a way to disassociate oneself to the fact that an abortion is taking a human life. Genetics do not allow for any other possibility. Not, I repeat NOT, to say that you cannot still have the argument of viability or of whether or not the unborn child should have rights or not... but simply the fact that abortion is the taking of a human life.
 
" Are rights for the unborn as assumed as roe vs wade ?"

That is the true argument on the issue of abortion. Are the unborn entitled to rights? Under the current laws I would say after the first trimester, they begin having rights assigned (based on the banning of late term abortions... other than to save the life of the mother of course). I do not believe the child is currently allowed any rights during the first trimester. Whether that is right or wrong is most certainly up for debate.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Most pro-choicers do not see the unborn as having any right at all. So they would not be saying privacy trumps the right to life since they believe the right to life is not possessed by the unborn. They would say their right to privacy trumps the government's desire to control behavior.
Click to expand...
Most anti-abortionists grant women no rights at all: they tend to see women as cattle.

Well, maybe I'm being a *bit* harsh.

You're treading on thin ice when you start making generalizations about what pro-choice people feel and believe.
 
Is my statement there wrong. Most pro-choicers I've talked to have indicated the above including you. Is it not your assertion that the unborn are not person's and thus protections such as human rights protections and the 14th amendment do not apply.

Frankly I think this is a necessary viewpoint. How could a liberal minded person accept the violation of the right to life of an entity if they actually thought it was a person?
 
Yes we hoomans do need to rationalze things out. I mean how could we torture an poor little child with information critical to our defense ?
It has to be an evill islamofascist terrorist el grande, then it is fine to torture them.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Is my statement there wrong. Most pro-choicers I've talked to have indicated the above including you. Is it not your assertion that the unborn are not person's and thus protections such as human rights protections and the 14th amendment do not apply.

Frankly I think this is a necessary viewpoint. How could a liberal minded person accept the violation of the right to life of an entity if they actually thought it was a person?
Click to expand...

Whether I believe a blastocyst is a human being or not, is immaterial. My belief has nothing to do with the law. It's for each individual person's conscience or theological beliefs to decide if a blastocyst is a human being. It's not something we can codify into law.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I have more respect for a person who opposes the termination of fetal life in any case save protection of life then someone who says its ok if its rape or incest.

Beware of those people. Those people subtlely think that becoming pregnant is a fault or a punishment for bad behavior. Thus the fact that it is the result of rape or incest 'excuses' the pregnancy.

If you're pro-life be pro-life. You can't say the unborn are human life and say that the circumstances of their creation negate those human rights.

Pro-choicers merely have a different opinion than me. I disagree but I fully understand. I don't care for people who mealy mouthily say 'except for rape or incest." This is just political expediency and makes me suspect them of being misogynistic.
Click to expand...


I don't care for people who mealy mouthily say 'except for rape or incest." This is just political expediency and makes me suspect them of being misogynistic

Concur. If your going to point the finger of blame at women who get abortions, and call it "murder', then if it truly is murder, you can't make mealy-mouthed exceptions.

I'll tell you what: The day I see a theocrat run into a burning fertility clinic - dodging flames and collapsing walls - to save a petri dish of blastocysts, is the day I really believe that they actually think an embryo is the equivalent of a human being.
 
Cypress said:
I don't care for people who mealy mouthily say 'except for rape or incest." This is just political expediency and makes me suspect them of being misogynistic

Concur. If your going to point the finger of blame at women who get abortions, and call it "murder', then if it truly is murder, you can't make mealy-mouthed exceptions.

I'll tell you what: The day I see a theocrat run into a burning fertility clinic - dodging flames and collapsing walls - to save a petri dish of blastocysts, is the day I really believe that they actually think an embryo is the equivalent of a human being.
Click to expand...

LOL! I'll go along with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top