Change the Constitution????

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
...slavery; Roger Taney said Dredd Scott wasn't a citizen because only men can be citizens and Dredd, as a slave, as a piece of property like a horse, could not be a man, therefore not a citizen. That was the last straw in a load we'd been carrying as a nation since day 1.

If a woman is a citizen, then they have full and equal rights. You can not make them care for a fetus inside them, you just can't. If she wants it gone, it's none of anyone else's business. To me, right doesn't always mean the most palatable choice. I think abortion and drug addiction and alcoholism and smoking cigarettes are pretty darn self abusive. I also think it is an individual right to abort, to smoke, to drink or get high.

The best we, as a society can do is educate and debate. Just because one has the right to abort or smoke or drink or get high, doesn't mean they should. What an individual chooses is a result of upbringing, education and free will.
Click to expand...
IMO, your slavery analogy is very apt. Like the slave not being considered a human, people don't consider the baby human until birth. But, it has it's own separate DNA, it's own heartbeat once the heart is formed, it's own, well, everything. IMO, it is a human, as much as it will be once the cord is cut. Now, we can't force the mom to care for it - but if she takes that responsibility on (like, when she's the care provider that day with all other adults gone), that's a choice, and we can reasonably punish her for not providing food, proper care, etc. If her actions cause a two day old's death, we can reasonably charge her with murder/negligent homicide/etc. So, why the difference before birth when it's a human before birth?

Obviously, this is the answer to that question is the problem - people disagree on when it's a separate life. "Clump of cells", etc.

The difference I see between a debate like this and drugs/smoking/etc., is whether the person involved is hurting someone else. Clearly, I feel the mother who aborts is hurting another person. However, if a person drinks/smokes/whatever, they are generally hurting themselves only. Like obesity. If you force someone else to smoke, or drink and drive, or something where you are harming others, it's wrong. Otherwise, it's really no one else's business, IMO.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You are using...

This_person said:
IMO, your slavery analogy is very apt. Like the slave not being considered a human, people don't consider the baby human until birth. But, it has it's own separate DNA, it's own heartbeat once the heart is formed, it's own, well, everything. IMO, it is a human, as much as it will be once the cord is cut. Now, we can't force the mom to care for it - but if she takes that responsibility on (like, when she's the care provider that day with all other adults gone), that's a choice, and we can reasonably punish her for not providing food, proper care, etc. If her actions cause a two day old's death, we can reasonably charge her with murder/negligent homicide/etc. So, why the difference before birth when it's a human before birth?

Obviously, this is the answer to that question is the problem - people disagree on when it's a separate life. "Clump of cells", etc.

The difference I see between a debate like this and drugs/smoking/etc., is whether the person involved is hurting someone else. Clearly, I feel the mother who aborts is hurting another person. However, if a person drinks/smokes/whatever, they are generally hurting themselves only. Like obesity. If you force someone else to smoke, or drink and drive, or something where you are harming others, it's wrong. Otherwise, it's really no one else's business, IMO.
Click to expand...

...the slavery analogy in favor of the unborn. I am using it in favor of the mother. Mom is first. Baby second. Baby is subordinate to mom. It is pure semantics to get into when the child could survive outside the womb because that simply becomes a debate like this; What about the day before it could live outside? Or a day and an hour? A day and a minute? A week? Why does a week matter? A week and a day? So on. We wanna dump that in some judge or juries lap?

Better to accept clear cut delineations and live with it than to turn everything into murky waters where not only is there no clear line of wrong but also no clear line of right.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
...the slavery analogy in favor of the unborn. I am using it in favor of the mother. Mom is first. Baby second. Baby is subordinate to mom. It is pure semantics to get into when the child could survive outside the womb because that simply becomes a debate like this; What about the day before it could live outside? Or a day and an hour? A day and a minute? A week? Why does a week matter? A week and a day? So on. We wanna dump that in some judge or juries lap?

Better to accept clear cut delineations and live with it than to turn everything into murky waters where not only is there no clear line of wrong but also no clear line of right.
Click to expand...
Okay, mom is first, baby is second. does that imply that you think if a mother just walks away from her infant in a shopping cart in January in the Upper Pennisula of MI to freeze to death, she is merely excersizing her rights of not being subordinate to her child? Or, is that negligent homicide, because the infant's death could reasonably be assumed by her actions?

I agree we need to accept clear cut delineations and live with it. When you are engaging in sexual activity, you must assume that you could become pregnant or cause pregnancy, and therefore you are implying you accept responsibility for those actions.

If not, then why is the father ALWAYS forced to provide financial support? Why isn't he given that same right of non-subordination to his child?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
...once the child is born. Ask any mom.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure ANY mom would agree - there are quite a few that see aborting a baby the same as killing a baby.

Again, it comes down to determining when it's a separate life, regardless of who's the person that can take care of it.
 
2ndAmendment

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
...in there kid, one more day and you'd be 6 months old. Oh well....'swooooossshhhhhhhh...'

We can bestow rights on a ham sammitch once it is 180 days old and it makes about as much sense constitutionally. You can not, constitutionally, subordinate someones rights to 'someone' else in the fashion that outlawing abortion does. You can't tell someone to not take drugs, nor smoke, drink alcohol, eat trans fats or sell a kidney. Or have an abortion.

At least not constitutionally. At least not in my opinion. If we can, we can tell them anything including no guns, no using this or that word, no privacy, redefine 'unreasonable search' and so on.
Click to expand...
There is much, and that is being mild, that the feds do that is not Constitutional. If the federal government operated within the bounds of the Constitution, there would be no opinion on abortion, marriage, and lots of other things that the feds have no right to concern themselves about.

The feds overstepping their authority, no matter what branch, is all about greed and power.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That...

2ndAmendment said:
There is much, and that is being mild, that the feds do that is not Constitutional. If the federal government operated within the bounds of the Constitution, there would be no opinion on abortion, marriage, and lots of other things that the feds have no right to concern themselves about.

The feds overstepping their authority, no matter what branch, is all about greed and power.
Click to expand...
...was not the question.
 
2ndAmendment

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
...was not the question.
Click to expand...
The majority of the states recognize a viable in utero fetus as a person. If you kill the mother and the fetus dies, you can be charged with a double homicide or murder. That means that those states recognize the fetus as a human being.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And yet...

2ndAmendment said:
The majority of the states recognize a viable in utero fetus as a person. If you kill the mother and the fetus dies, you can be charged with a double homicide or murder. That means that those states recognize the fetus as a human being.
Click to expand...
...in those same states she can have it sucked out and dumped in the garbage and no charges are filed.
 
Xaquin44

Xaquin44

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
The majority of the states recognize a viable in utero fetus as a person. If you kill the mother and the fetus dies, you can be charged with a double homicide or murder. That means that those states recognize the fetus as a human being.
Click to expand...
Also in those same states you (well, a woman) can get in vitro fertilization where some 30-40% of the embryos you claim are human life are guaranteed to die.

Is that ok?
 
2ndAmendment

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
...in those same states she can have it sucked out and dumped in the garbage and no charges are filed.
Click to expand...
Incongruity in the law. Surprise. :sarcasm: If they were filed, then at least there would be legislation that would make the law definitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top