Pro Life vs Pro Choice

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

From my perspective yes.

A lot of people here, don't though.

People seem to take the issue of abortion rather lightly, and that's always bothered me.

Also why am i getting the third degree for this belief?

DroidPhysX

Cause that's kind of strange. It's like saying "I think it's wrong to rape someone", but "I don't really care if someone does it to someone else".

...

ok?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Cause that's kind of strange. It's like saying "I think it's wrong to rape someone", but "I don't really care if someone does it to someone else".

Storm_Marine

...

ok?

oh my, did i time travel to the 1800's?

Would be awesome if people could care enough about real lives that get lost in wars, rather then bringing up the same topic in every political discussion and completely stopping progress.

I understand this is a very popular topic in America, and other western countries, but please try to be as idealistic on other issues as you are with this one. How about you actually protest against the people that are dying in pointless wars, rather then thinking about babies that get born into this crazy world of ours.

-

Dont get me wrong, i think both sides have some reasonable arguments. But Pro Lifers generally dont have the same "pro life" views when it comes to other issues involving human lives.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] It's not all that strange. I know some heterosexual men that support gay rights but don't want their kids to be gay DroidPhysX

...

ok?

We are now so off the mark I don't know what to say.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Some people want abortions and some people don't. If you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one, but don't force your views on people who do want an abortion

SolidSnake35

Don't consider myself a moral relativist.

Thing is, I am Muslim, I am heterosexual, I am personally pro-life.

But i cannot in good conscious force everyone to be Muslim, hetero, or pro-life.

My moral compass is not the same as everyone else, and everyone (including myself) has their own and will bear their own sins (think of it in both or either the religious/non-religious meaning of sin). My worldview is not one solely of black and white, good and evil. In my view life is 90% gray.

Plus the hyperbolic rape example doesn't stand, because in the case of rape there is a party - the victim - that calls out the wrong. a fetus cannot, and that's a sucky fact. because if it were not the case, we would very likely not be arguing about abortion at all.

To add the example of what DroidPhysx wrote. I am for LGBT legal rights, I am hetero, if my future kid(s) end up being LGBT i can live with and accept that. I however will not promote the LGBT lifestyle to my kids, but if nature took it's course (and yes i do believe they are born that way), then what will be will be.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Cause that's kind of strange. It's like saying "I think it's wrong to rape someone", but "I don't really care if someone does it to someone else".

SaudiFury

Unless you're atotal moral relativist I don't understand how you can subscribe to that point of view.

deleted the quotes, thanks for pointing it out.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Cause that's kind of strange. It's like saying "I think it's wrong to rape someone", but "I don't really care if someone does it to someone else".

SaudiFury

Unless you're atotal moral relativist I don't understand how you can subscribe to that point of view.

So basically I have one last question for you. Is there any area that the State should impose forced compliance in? Is there any standard or law that should be enforced?

Im generally pro life, I hold the Jewish view.

this means that an abortion is allowed , but only under extreme circumstances, such as the pregnancy/birth potentially causing harm to the mother , or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live.

in those cases, I believe abortion is ok , but once a baby is born , Im strictly pro life there.

Im also not a fan of things like assisted suicide, though I can understand the reasoning behined it (even if I personally disagree.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] In the constitution, a person is only talked about post natal. Never pre natal. Also, a constitutional amendment is 100% impossible given the congressional and state gridlock.DroidPhysX

That seems a bit thin of an argument. Especially in light of over 25 states and the federal government having laws on the books making killing a pregnant woman a double murder.

I consider Roe v Wade to have been decided on the wrong principles. Privacy is not the issue I am debating. The issue is, can a fetus be given the legal status of human life at any point before birth.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that is impossible without a constitutional amendment. Well, how then can killing a pregnant woman be considered double murder if the fetus growing inside her is not a human life?

Here again is my argument: It is equally as ridiculous to state that an 8 month old fetus is not a human being as it is to state that a fertilized egg is a human being. I do not see anything in or about the US constitution that would prohibit the govt, federal or state, from declaring that at some point in the gestation process, society now legally deems that life form to be human, and therefore protected by law as such. In fact, the existence of laws, both federal and in more than half the states, declaring that killing a pregnant woman is a double murder is evidence that there is no obstacle in the constitution to declaring an unborn fetus/baby a human life.

or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live.

Im also not a fan of things like assisted suicide, though I can understand the reasoning behined it (even if I personally disagree.

Darkman2007

Isn't that assisted suicide, except without the consent part?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

That seems a bit thin of an argument. Especially in light of over 25 states and the federal government having laws on the books making killing a pregnant woman a double murder.

collegeboy64

I consider Roe v Wade to have been decided on the wrong principles. Privacy is not the issue I am debating. The issue is, can a fetus be given the legal status of human life at any point before birth.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that is impossible without a constitutional amendment. Well, how then can killing a pregnant woman be considered double murder if the fetus growing inside her is not a human life?

Here again is my argument: It is equally as ridiculous to state that an 8 month old fetus is not a human being as it is to state that a fertilized egg is a human being. I do not see anything in or about the US constitution that would prohibit the govt, federal or state, from declaring that at some point in the gestation process, society now legally deems that life form to be human, and therefore protected by law as such. In fact, the existence of laws, both federal and in more than half the states, declaring that killing a pregnant woman is a double murder is evidence that there is no obstacle in the constitution to declaring an unborn fetus/baby a human life.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live.

Im also not a fan of things like assisted suicide, though I can understand the reasoning behined it (even if I personally disagree.

Storm_Marine

Isn't that assisted suicide, except without the consent part?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live.

Im also not a fan of things like assisted suicide, though I can understand the reasoning behined it (even if I personally disagree.

Darkman2007

Isn't that assisted suicide, except without the consent part?

You're not adressing the"or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live" part.

What about Pro-Death?

:P

What about Pro-Death?

:P

cabose38

Not funny.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Isn't that assisted suicide, except without the consent part?

Storm_Marine

You're not adressing the"or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live" part.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

You're not adressing the"or if the child will be born with an incurable disease that will only give him a few years to live" part.

Storm_Marine

This whole thing doesn't make since. There is a belief in the existence of an eternal soul in Judaism is there not?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Some people want abortions and some people don't. If you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one, but don't force your views on people who do want an abortion

SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Some people want abortions and some people don't. If you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one, but don't force your views on people who do want an abortion

Serraph105

Because whether the child is the product of rape or the product of consensual sex does not affect the actual being of the child... Your trieing to push an extra emotional element to the debate for no reason.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] yes I did , I said that since the child is technically "incomplete", an abortion would not be wrong if the child was only to be born and live in pain for a few years. of course , if the child is perfectly healthy then the abortion would have no ground. when a person has only a few years to live , while every effort should be made to ease his suffering, it would be wrong to take his life on the count that he is a "complete person if you will. you could argue that person might want to die, but in Judaism , the person helping would be commiting a sin of murder, and taking a life. an unborn child is not really considerd "alive" as such.Storm_Marine

You said that the child's life was worth less, not worthless.

This whole thing doesn't make since. There is a belief in the existnece of an eternal soul in Judaism is there not?

I dont know if you have ever taken an anthropology class in college, if you have not, should pick up a book and read how people live (and not just the hate filled stuff you found from Hamas and Hezbollah either).

Governments tend to not operate outside of the pervading culture of the nation.

*When it comes to culture issues like Abortion, Gay Race, Religion.

It's also the price everyone pays for a secular society free for and from ideological dogma (religious or not).

It is the culture of the people that dictates what laws are agreed upon. Abortion is merely one of those wedge issues that the culture has not agreed upon.

Some laws in a society will be implemented by force because the culture entirely agrees it's the right thing to do. It's issues like abortion, gay rights where the society disagrees that we bicker. At the same time though, had you asked a man in the South in 1890 if he agreed with the Emancipation Proclamation he'd probably say hell no. Ask a person from the same region today and they would probably say yes they agree. That'd be another point to take into consideration.

Culture is not static, it is fluid.

Also.

Life is tough, Life is full of contradicitons. We end up dealing with the bits we don't like in the end.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

You said that the child's life was worth less, not worthless.

Darkman2007

This whole thing doesn't make since. There is a belief in the existnece of an eternal soul in Judaism is there not?

So the child is endowed with a soul upon exiting the womb?

I dont know if you have ever taken an anthropology class in college, if you have not, should pick up a book and read how people live (and not just the hate filled stuff you found from Hamas and Hezbollah either).

Governments tend to not operate outside of the pervading culture of the nation.

*When it comes to culture issues like Abortion, Gay Race, Religion.

It's also the price everyone pays for a secular society free for and from ideological dogma (religious or not).

It is the culture of the people that dictates what laws are agreed upon. Abortion is merely one of those wedge issues that the culture has not agreed upon.

Some laws in a society will be implemented by force because the culture entirely agrees it's the right thing to do. It's issues like abortion, gay rights where the society disagrees that we bicker. At the same time though, had you asked a man in the South in 1890 if he agreed with the Emancipation Proclamation he'd probably say hell no. Ask a person from the same region today and they would probably say yes they agree. That'd be another point to take into consideration.

Culture is not static, it is fluid.

Also.

Life is tough, Life is full of contradicitons. We end up dealing with the bits we don't like in the end.

SaudiFury

So you are a relativist? There are no universal standards that exist independent of the culture at hand?

And what's with the little shot at my Hezbollah/Hamas thread?

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

This whole thing doesn't make since. There is a belief in the existnece of an eternal soul in Judaism is there not?

Storm_Marine

So the child is endowed with a soul upon exiting the womb?

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Unless the view should be forced, as are the views on murder, rape etc.Storm_Marine

Because whether the child is the product of rape or the product of consensual sex does not affect the actual being of the child... Your trieing to push an extra emotional element to the debate for no reason.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] You consider the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade a thin argument? :?DroidPhysX

I consider Roe v Wade to have been decided on the wrong principles. Privacy is not the issue I am debating. The issue is, can a fetus be given the legal status of human life at any point before birth.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that is impossible without a constitutional amendment. Well, how then can killing a pregnant woman be considered double murder if the fetus growing inside her is not a human life?

Here again is my argument: It is equally as ridiculous to state that an 8 month old fetus is not a human being as it is to state that a fertilized egg is a human being. I do not see anything in or about the US constitution that would prohibit the govt, federal or state, from declaring that at some point in the gestation process, society now legally deems that life form to be human, and therefore protected by law as such. In fact, the existence of laws, both federal and in more than half the states, declaring that killing a pregnant woman is a double murder is evidence that there is no obstacle in the constitution to declaring an unborn fetus/baby a human life.

Well, the federal law has been on the books since 2004 and I can't find any reference to it being challenged in court. There are 34 states with such laws, many being on the books for decades. I'd think if they were so patently unconstitutional they would have been knocked down by now.

In fact, if you are so sure its unconstitutional,you should contact Scott Peterson right away. He is serving a sentence for the double murder of his wife Lacy and their unborn child as we speak.

And I've read and read and read that darn constitution over and over again and I just can't find the word natal anywhere in there. In fact, I can't find anywhere in there where they even attempt to define the word person(s). Maybe you can point that part out for me.

Well, the federal law has been on the books since 2004 and I can't find any reference to it being challenged in court. There are 34 states with such laws, many being on the books for decades. I'd think if they were so patently unconstitutional they would have been knocked down by now.

In fact, if you are so sure its unconstitutional,you should contact Scott Peterson right away. He is serving a sentence for the double murder of his wife Lacy and their unborn child as we speak.

And I've read and read and read that darn constitution over and over again and I just can't find the word natal anywhere in there. In fact, I can't find anywhere in there where they even attempt to define the word person(s). Maybe you can point that part out for me.

collegeboy64

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

For me, I'm pro choice until there is a heartbeat...

Than I am very much pro life.

Regardless, it is still sad that people are forced to take these measures in a society with as much wealth as North America and Europe...

:/

[QUOTE="toast_burner"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Unless the view should be forced, as are the views on murder, rape etc.SolidSnake35

Society exists primarily for protection of life and property (from both internal and external threats). Without prohibitions on actions like murder and theft, society cannot serve its purpose. A prohibition on abortion is not essential to the existence and purpose of society.

I'm not saying you shouldn't oppose abortion, but prohibitions on theft and murder are not comparable to prohibitions on abortion. Prohibitions on theft and murder are out of necessity, while a prohibition on abortion is out of morality.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] actually an unborn child is worth less. in fact, it doesn't consider an unborn child to have a soul. if youre asking why somre abortions are still wrong, and thats because its a potential life, and so it does value, but not the same as a "living" persionDarkman2007

So the child is endowed with a soul upon exiting the womb?

And that's all from the Torah?

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

So the child is endowed with a soul upon exiting the womb?

Storm_Marine

And that's all from the Torah?

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

I dont know if you have ever taken an anthropology class in college, if you have not, should pick up a book and read how people live (and not just the hate filled stuff you found from Hamas and Hezbollah either).

Governments tend to not operate outside of the pervading culture of the nation.

*When it comes to culture issues like Abortion, Gay Race, Religion.

It's also the price everyone pays for a secular society free for and from ideological dogma (religious or not).

It is the culture of the people that dictates what laws are agreed upon. Abortion is merely one of those wedge issues that the culture has not agreed upon.

Some laws in a society will be implemented by force because the culture entirely agrees it's the right thing to do. It's issues like abortion, gay rights where the society disagrees that we bicker. At the same time though, had you asked a man in the South in 1890 if he agreed with the Emancipation Proclamation he'd probably say hell no. Ask a person from the same region today and they would probably say yes they agree. That'd be another point to take into consideration.

Culture is not static, it is fluid.

Also.

Life is tough, Life is full of contradicitons. We end up dealing with the bits we don't like in the end.

Storm_Marine

So you are a relativist? There are no universal standards that exist independent of the culture at hand?

And what's with the little shot at my Hezbollah/Hamas thread?

If that is being a relativist so be it.

To me is just being a realist. "a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly" - As according to my Thesaurus.

Religiously it is exactly the same thing if you look to history. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. All interpreted and acted out differently over the centuries they have existed, and given each region's practice of it under their unique circumstances.

The moral standard is the standard of the day. That statement is a self-evident truth, by virtue of talking to people in the street right now and looking back to history.

There are somethings in life that are absolutely right and wrong that are not just informed from religious doctrine but by basic human needs as well.

and we can kid ourselves all day long that there is an absolute yes and no with everything if we like - with every fiber in our bodies, it still doesn't mean for sure we are REALLY in the right.

Morality is both objective and subjective, how far one goes is entirely is based entirely in how one see's their moral guidance in the subjective manner.

---------

As far as the shot at the Hezbollah/Hamas thread, i was actually thinking before clicking on it that it would be an interesting, not some terrorist groups propoganda.

My idea of culture shock are like the Hijra's of India, or a book like this one that i've read.

Something like that.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Well, the federal law has been on the books since 2004 and I can't find any reference to it being challenged in court. There are 34 states with such laws, many being on the books for decades. I'd think if they were so patently unconstitutional they would have been knocked down by now.

In fact, if you are so sure its unconstitutional,you should contact Scott Peterson right away. He is serving a sentence for the double murder of his wife Lacy and their unborn child as we speak.

And I've read and read and read that darn constitution over and over again and I just can't find the word natal anywhere in there. In fact, I can't find anywhere in there where they even attempt to define the word person(s). Maybe you can point that part out for me.

DroidPhysX

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

You said you were sure those laws were being challenged as "...unjust substantive due process laws...". If they violate a persons right to due process, doesn't that imply they violate the 5th amendment?

Again, no where in the constitution is there any prohibition against defining a fetus/baby in the womb as a person. If the people, through their elected representatives, pass a law stating that a fetus capable of living outside the womb shall be considered a person while still in the womb, you would be hard pressed to make a legitimate case against the constitutionality of such a law. If such a case could be made, I'm sure NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood, et al, would have done so by now, voiding the 34 state laws and the federal law that make killing a pregnant woman a double homicide.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Well, the federal law has been on the books since 2004 and I can't find any reference to it being challenged in court. There are 34 states with such laws, many being on the books for decades. I'd think if they were so patently unconstitutional they would have been knocked down by now.

In fact, if you are so sure its unconstitutional,you should contact Scott Peterson right away. He is serving a sentence for the double murder of his wife Lacy and their unborn child as we speak.

And I've read and read and read that darn constitution over and over again and I just can't find the word natal anywhere in there. In fact, I can't find anywhere in there where they even attempt to define the word person(s). Maybe you can point that part out for me.

collegeboy64

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

You said you were sure those laws were being challenged as "...unjust substantive due process laws...". If they violate a persons right to due process, doesn't that imply they violate the 5th amendment?

Again, no where in the constitution is there any prohibition against defining a fetus/baby in the womb as a person. If the people, through their elected representatives, pass a law stating that a fetus capable of living outside the womb shall be considered a person while still in the womb, you would be hard pressed to make a legitimate case against the constitutionality of such a law. If such a case could be made, I'm sure NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood, et al, would have done so by now, voiding the 34 state laws and the federal law that make killing a pregnant woman a double homicide.

Umm, i was arguing the point that the constitution does not recognize fetuses as person(s) and my point was exemplified with the the proof above. Don't know where you got the 2nd paragraph from.

Let's put it like this (scenario wise): Say there's a fetus created by two people who want nothing to do with eachother. It was just a one-night-stand. The child will need proper raising and is better off with two parents as opposed to one (this is a whole'nother discussion). This 15 year-old woman who is a freshman in high school and who, simply put, will not be able to raise this child without someone else who is not only willing to work hard for income but basically drop out of his future plans, hopes, dreams, high school, college, etc. Now, should she have the option of getting rid of this burden that she bestowed upon herself with the help of someone else, or should she have to deal with it and learn her lesson?

How about the same scenario with, except for the fun time, it was rape. Now, should she have the option of getting rid of this burden that was bestowed upon her by a stranger, or should she have to deal with it and learn her lesson (stop dressing up like a slut and going places not expecting to get banged by someone who doesn't care if she likes it)?

Answer those two questions. Now, think about this one. Does every fetus made have to be born?

This has been your a**hole neighborhood "yarow," turning discussions up and down and all around.

being either would be ignoring the special circumstances defining the choices made by the individual

seriously ppl, stop boxing stuff.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] I never once claimed that those laws were unconstitutional. Also:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

DroidPhysX

You said you were sure those laws were being challenged as "...unjust substantive due process laws...". If they violate a persons right to due process, doesn't that imply they violate the 5th amendment?

Again, no where in the constitution is there any prohibition against defining a fetus/baby in the womb as a person. If the people, through their elected representatives, pass a law stating that a fetus capable of living outside the womb shall be considered a person while still in the womb, you would be hard pressed to make a legitimate case against the constitutionality of such a law. If such a case could be made, I'm sure NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood, et al, would have done so by now, voiding the 34 state laws and the federal law that make killing a pregnant woman a double homicide.

Umm, i was arguing the point that the constitution does not recognize fetuses as person(s) and my point was exemplified with the the proof above. Don't know where you got the 2nd paragraph from.

So far you have not provided any proof that these double murder laws are being challenged.

You stated, way back, that a fetus can never be given person status in the states because of the constitution. So far, in my opinion, you have failed to back that statement up with any facts.

I presented you the fact that killing a pregnant woman is a double murder under federal jurisdiction and in 34 states. I also pointed out that no where in the constitution is a person explicitly defined, nor is their any expressed or implied prohibition against defining a viable fetus as a person.

So, what exactly is your position/argument? What, exactly, would prevent a state from defining a 6 month old fetus as a person, fully endowed with all the rights and protections possessed by a 1 day old infant?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

You said you were sure those laws were being challenged as "...unjust substantive due process laws...". If they violate a persons right to due process, doesn't that imply they violate the 5th amendment?

Again, no where in the constitution is there any prohibition against defining a fetus/baby in the womb as a person. If the people, through their elected representatives, pass a law stating that a fetus capable of living outside the womb shall be considered a person while still in the womb, you would be hard pressed to make a legitimate case against the constitutionality of such a law. If such a case could be made, I'm sure NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood, et al, would have done so by now, voiding the 34 state laws and the federal law that make killing a pregnant woman a double homicide.

collegeboy64

Umm, i was arguing the point that the constitution does not recognize fetuses as person(s) and my point was exemplified with the the proof above. Don't know where you got the 2nd paragraph from.

So far you have not provided any proof that these double murder laws are being challenged.

You stated, way back, that a fetus can never be given person status in the states because of the constitution. So far, in my opinion, you have failed to back that statement up with any facts.

I presented you the fact that killing a pregnant woman is a double murder under federal jurisdiction and in 34 states. I also pointed out that no where in the constitution is a person explicitly defined, nor is their any expressed or implied prohibition against defining a viable fetus as a person.

So, what exactly is your position/argument? What, exactly, would prevent a state from defining a 6 month old fetus as a person, fully endowed with all the rights and protections possessed by a 1 day old infant?

The more babies that get aborted, the less chance I get stuck having to pay for one. Pro-Choice.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] pro-life people are currently trying to force their view that if you get raped and get pregnant you should be forced to have the baby. If you are against rape how can you get behind people like that?Serraph105

Because whether the child is the product of rape or the product of consensual sex does not affect the actual being of the child... Your trieing to push an extra emotional element to the debate for no reason.

Well first of all, if you want to talk about potential traumatization, there are lots of cases women who have had abortions and feel an immense amount of guilt and remorse afterwords. But anyway that's not the point. As much as I feel sorry for the victim of rape, it makes no since to follow up one evil with an even greater evil...

I'm pro-life and I'm only for abortions if it endangers the mother's life or is a product of rape or incest.JustPlainLucas

Again, it's not the kids fault if the father was a complete scumbag.