fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
"We the Few?" Really. How many people did it take to decide this? FIVE unelected lawyers in black robes decided to thwart the will of the people in every single state.
50 million plus dead babies later...
Can someone explain the vote in California?
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
50 million plus dead babies later...
No there isn't a 'right to privacy', there is 'due process of law', within the clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments. These protect substantive rights. In fact that was upheld in Girswold vs Connecticut, when the court struck down a state law that prohibited married couples from using contraceptives.
So, without due process, the Connecticut law would have been upheld, and contraceptives would be illegal for married couples. Good idea-huh?
We rely on due process when it comes to protecting people's rights to live their lives as they desire (which includes privacy). The Connecticut case is just one example.
I am not asking for any new rights here - you don't seem to get that Shag - I am just looking to when those rights can be enforced.
It isn't specious to ask when life begins in this case. Rights depend on certain criteria.
Life is the top of the heap as you say. Some may disagree (give me liberty or give me death comes to mind). But, for argument sake put it on a pedestal. So, define life Shag - according to the constitution. I am not attempting to 'redefine' life as you state - I am just trying to find out how the constitution defines it.
That is what the crux of the problem is - there is no defining point in the constitution that creates that moment where life begins - it is up to opinion at this juncture.
During the 19th century - abortion practices were far freer than today - and the constitution hasn't addressed the issue any differently since the inception of the constitution. What made it OK in the 19th century to get an abortion, and why is it being questioned today?
There is the problem Shag, 'potential life'. Ever read Minority Report? A crime 'might happen' so, you arrest the person before the crime occurs, see any problems there with the constitution? Life 'could' be present in a fetus, so you throw away everything else out and focus on the 'might' equation. That is very, very wrong. The government has no right to suppose that 'might' equation. There is just as much evidence that life doesn't start until viability or even birth. Until that question can be answered (by law), the government is not allowed to infringe on the mother's rights on a supposition that there is a 'potential' for life.
You go down that road, and then all potential human life is protected. The chance that life could occur outlaws contraceptives doesn't it? Let's go back to that Connecticut case...
And quit saying 'right to choose' I haven't gone there at all... sorry - I know it is the easy way to attack me. And remember - that is a potential innocent life. Potential things don't have rights spelled out in the constitution.
There are no "substantive" or "fundamental" rights in the constitution. Due process does not in any way create or allow for those. Only by changing the definition of due process and calling it substantive due process do those rights "exist" in the constitution. It is a farce. There is no such thing.
The result of the ruling in a SCOTUS case is irrelevant (or should be). The SCOTUS is only supposed to answer a constitutional question. That is it!
Now you are talking about procedural due process. That is entirely different and is constitutionally based in both the 5th and 14th amendment.
Here is the difference:
- Procedural due process: Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. In the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights, most of which have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Due process has also been construed to generally protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result. It deals with explicit procedural rights in the constitution and common law.
- Substantive due process:Courts have viewed the due process clause, and sometimes other clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America, as embracing those fundamental rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (Palko v. Connecticut). Just what those rights are is not always clear, nor is the Supreme Court's authority to enforce such unenumerated rights clear. It is under the auspices of substantive due process that "fundamental rights" (or "substantive rights") are "found" (created) in the constitution.
No, but even science cannot clearly define life. The specific definition is debated. It isn't the place of science or the courts to determine what life is, especially when it has the potential life and death consequences of an abortion. That is even to big for the legislature to decide, as coming down on either side of this issue is going to either create a new right, or reject that potential right. It is for society as a whole to decide that.
Preferably, that would be in the form of an Amendment, but the pro-choice side of this debate seems rather opposed to allowing a vote on an amendment. That was part of the reason for Roe v. Wade. The country was building to an ultimate amendment on this and the left used the courts to stop that groundswell.
So what you are left with is historical precedent, and that precedent never recognized any "right to an abortion". The idea that abortion was a protected constitutional right was new to American history, with no suggestion that anyone before the 1960s, much less the Framers of the 14th Amendment, thought that the liberty provision of the Due Process Clause protected such a right against the states' police power. So in the absense of text and tradition, the SCOTUS has nothing to guide it's decisions on abortion.
However, there is a strong constitutionally textual basis for the protection of life as well as a strong historical social tradition. So, when it comes to decisions concerning the right to life, there is a clear guide that the SCOTUS is constitutionally obligated to follow. To not follow that is to reject the rule of law.
Actually, the constitution clearly comes down on one side of this argument. The SCOTUS is constitutionally bound to stick with that. I am not focusing on a "might", I am focusing on what is and isn't the place of the court. To even argue that they should go beyond what the constitution calls for, to impose what is right or wrong in their own judgement, is to reject the rule of law. It is to support a form of totalitarianism from the judicial branch of the government.
All the evidence in the world doesn't determine anything, in and of itself. It is society's place to determine when life begins. That is going to deal more with morals and values then it ever will with any "evidence" you can offer.
And again, there is no infringe ment on any constitutional right of the mother's. You can assert that all you want, but you still cannot show the constitutionally textual basis for it because there is none. All you can do is make some vague alusion to a distorted view of the due process clause.
Now there is a huge stretch. No one is saying anything about the possibility of life occuring; we are talking about after conception already has occured at it is, by most people's estimation IMO, a life.
Sorry if I attacked you? It wasn't my intent. I don't see how it can be views as an "attack"...
It isn't a "potential" anything. An egg or a sperm is a "potential" life, it hasn't reach the point of being or becoming a life. A fetus is either a life or is not. That is dependant on your moral views and values.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh...my...God. You've never had children, have you?
Shag - there are indeed substantive rights in the constitution - heck, let’s start at the first amendment - the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary.
But Shag, the court uses previous cases all the time to judge current cases - the results are never irrelevant. It is how law is argued, by precedent. Now I know your guy Scalia doesn't like the idea of using precedent for Supreme Court cases, but the rest of the boys do it. Scalia stating that he thinks it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. His is just one opinion. Look at the rest of the court... I think it would be about 7 to 2 against him...
So, until society decides on when life begins - we are stuck with the court. Women are stuck with the fact the ERA has never been ratified. Pro life advocates are stuck with the fact the Pro Life amendment can't even make it out of congress. That is where it stands currently.
The court has to strike down laws that would have been dependent on an Equal Rights Amendment to justify them. Just as the court currently has to strike down any laws that would depend on a definition of life, because there is no amendment.
And if you are stuck with historical precedent, I already addressed that point. Throughout the 1800s abortions were easy to get, and fairly common. It has only been since the late 1800s (abortion was pretty much illegal throughout the US by the very early 1900s) that abortion became illegal. It basically marched with the idea in the country that it would be a good thing to place laws concerning morals and values. In fact, during the framing of the constitution, there were almost no laws regarding abortion, and US law at that point followed British law which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening (perceived movement in the womb).
And if SCOTUS has nothing to guide its decisions on abortion it also has nothing to guide its decisions regarding granting rights to 'potential' life. You stated that there is constitutional textual basis there - where? Where in the constitution does it state that 'potential life' has any rights?
You brought up the term 'potential life' (finally, it took you much longer than I thought it would). The only totalitarianism that could occur in this instance is if the court rules in the favor of 'potential' life. The court cannot judge cases on 'what could be'.
Until life is defined, the mother has every right in the constitution, and the fetus has none. No rights whatsoever Shag. The mother does have the right to privacy - you can argue against that one, but the court has come down in favor of it, and until Roe vs Wade is overturned, or better, there is a amendment, that is the way it will stay.
Plus, we all have the freedom to alter our bodies – women can remove their lower ribs – their little toes – their rear teeth, all in the name of mere fashion. Until the fetus is defined as having rights – women can remove it. As you stated at the end of your last post Shag, ”That is dependent on your moral views and values.” It is not dependent currently on anyone else’s moral views and values. It is up to the woman, and her faith, her conscious, her moral views and values, any barometer she deems necessary.
Once again you were the one that brought up potential life - not me. You opened that can of worms. And - if most people believe that life begins at conception you should have no trouble getting an amendment passed - go for it!!! Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia "Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing.".
By continuing to insert 'right to choice' you are trying to add something to this argument that I am very judiciously avoiding. You are posturing against something that isn't even in play here. From the very beginning I stated that the constitution does NOT give anyone the right of choice.
Once again you brought up 'potential life'.
You are better off with an amendment defining life then one that defines moral views and values. If you go with that, morals and values - you are heading into freedom of religion...
And, thank you for supporting my point of view, Shag. It is the individual's moral views and values that carry the most weight here. Leave it up to the individual and their definitions, morals, values, faith, etc. I personally don't think society's ideals have a lot to do with this question. But, if an amendment were passed, democracy has spoken, and laws would ensue.
Oh, since you asked, not all that nicely I may add Foss, yes I do have children, biological ones if you are really that interested, quid pro quo, do you?
Last edited by a moderator:
ford nut
Local nut case
Great post foxpaws...you hit the nail on the head.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
dp
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
How is using the definition of a word a "red herring" when you're the one saying "marriage is defined as one man and one woman, so that is how it is", is the dictionary not a valid source for what a word means now?
As far as "cherry picking", you're the one dismissing every definition of the word, with the expection of the one that fits your agenda; that's cherry picking, not the other way around. Because allowing gays to be married, would not nulify all other definitions. Seems you don't like to play by the very rules you expect others to.
You really have no clue what substantive rights are and where they come from do you...
Substantive rights come from substantive due process.
The rights you cite are natural rights, per the Framers. The fall into the area of "life, liberty and property". As far as the Frames were concerned, life and property were pretty self explanatory, but liberty was real vague. Hence the Bill of Rights to clarify what the Framers defined as "liberties" that were natural rights. There was no discussion of "substantive rights", "substantive due process" or anything like that.
As wikipedia points out: "The idea of substantive due process came in as a way to import natural law norms into the United States Constitution". In other words, it was a tool used to change the constitution by subverting the constitutionally mandated Amendment process. The liberties the Framers viewed as natural were specifically written out in the Bill of Rights and they created a process to amend the constitution and add rights as society felt necessary.
The idea of substantive rights comes from substantive due process and unconstitutionally injects rights into the constitution that are not a part of the constitution in any way.
Those rights you cite may fall under substantive rights, but that doesn't make other rights that are called substantive constitutionally based. The rights you cited were not originally considered "substantive" (there was no such thing as substantive rights in the creation of the constitution). Judges made up the idea of substantive due process and drew from that whatever rights they want. Effectively, subsantive rights is a tool to redefine rights as broadly as they want and claim that they are in the constitution. Being broad enough to include the natural rights explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights also gives those made up rights an added air of constitutional support; but is is only superficial and false. It is based on fallacious logic; namely suppressed correlative: "a type of argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other".
You are missing the point I was raising. It was a response this quote by you: "So, without due process, the Connecticut law would have been upheld, and contraceptives would be illegal for married couples."
I didn't make it clear I guess. Supreme Court cases are not judged by their outcome. Weather or not the ruling in the Connecticut case upheld the use of contraceptives for married couples is irrelevant to weather the ruling was proper or not. What matters is the reasoning behind it. If there is no texual basis for it, then it is beyond the scope of the SCOTUS.
I would question your version of history here. I want proof that abortions were "fairly common" and "easy to get". This sounds like historical revisionism to me...
In fact, the societal trend was in favor of restricting abortion, which is why feminists and liberals went to the courts to stop that trend.
Actually, it does. Life is expicitly protected, as I have pointed out, in both the 5th and 14 amendments. The constitution vest in the government an interest and obligation in protecting life. There is no broad "right to privacy" in the constitution. Therefore, any claim that a state law is unconstitutional due to violating a "right to privacy" (as in the case of Roe v. Wade) should be rejected. To do anything else is to reject the rule of law in favor of the judges' personal agenda; judicial activism totalitarianism. The state has a definite interest in protecting life, hence the rules limiting or doing away with abortion. As long at that doesn't conflict with any other constitutional right (and it doesn't) it is beyond the scope of the SCOTUS.
Actually, by most any objective standard, a fetus is a life. All the talk about weather it is or isn't a life if it is not viable is specious and disengenuous. If a fetus is not a life until it is viable, or removed from the womb, or whatever, then any parasite would not qualify as life. However, under any scientific definition, a parasite does qualify as life.
As far as history is concerned, society has viewed a fetus as a life for most of history, until around the time of Roe v. Wade. That idea came from the feminist movement to justify abortion by dishonestly and fallaciously discrediting the best argument against it. It is an attempt to redefine life to exclude a fetus; a fallacious denying the correlative argument (an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none).
You are correct that the mother has every right in the constitution, but she does not have rights that are not in the constiution. The whole ruling in Roe v. Wade (and the whole justification for abortion on demand) is based on claiming a right that is not in the constitution.
Interesting that you take Scalia out of context, but give the link. Here is the full quote:
My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.
He's making a bigger point about the flexibility of his view of the constitution as opposed to the view of a "living constitution" based on substantive due process.
The "right to an abortion" came about through the courts under a "living constitution" interpretation. It is now off the table to debate and make laws on.
Under Scalia's view, the SCOTUS has no business ruling on abortion in any way. Since the constitution doesn't talk about it, it is an issue constitutionally left to the states. They should be able to decide it as they see fit. Instead, due to the rigidity inherent in the "living constitution" view, it is unable to be determined by the people. The only way that anything could be done is to amend the federal constitution (which is next to impossible). The democrats in congress also won't allow any amendment process to go through on this issue.
Besides, it would ultimately be irrelevant, because, under the "living constitution" philosophy, it could be effectively ignored (through spin through the "substantive due process clause") by the judges.
The living constitution approach destroys the rule of law and gives unelected judges totalitarian power. That was Scalia's point.
If you read the whole of his speech, that is rather clear. It is also consistent with his rulings and opinions as well as his overall judicial philosophy.
I never said anything about an amendment defining moral views and values. You are mischaracterizing me. But, it should be noted that every law is ultimately defined by morals and values and is an imposition of those morals and values.
That would be especially the case with any amendment that defines life. When life begins will be determined by each voter individually by their own morals and values. The resulting amendment, in defining life, would be a reflection of society's morals and values.
Society's values and morals have everything to do with any and every law. Every law is an imposed societal moral.
I will leave you with more Scalia brilliance on substantive due process from that link of yours (keep in mind, it is a transcript of a speech):
let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted. For example, the First Amendment, which forbids Congress to abridge the freedom of speech. What does the freedom of speech mean? Well, it clearly did not mean that Congress or government could not impose any restrictions upon speech. Libel laws, for example, were clearly constitutional. Nobody thought the First Amendment was carte blanche to libel someone. But in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said, “But the First Amendment does prevent you from suing for libel if you are a public figure and if the libel was not malicious” — that is, the person, a member of the press or otherwise, thought that what the person said was true. Well, that had never been the law. I mean, it might be a good law. And some states could amend their libel law.
It’s one thing for a state to amend it’s libel law and say, “We think that public figures shouldn’t be able to sue.” That’s fine. But the courts have said that the First Amendment, which never meant this before, now means that if you are a public figure, that you can’t sue for libel unless it’s intentional, malicious. So that’s one way to do it.
Another example is the Constitution guarantees the right to be represented by counsel. That never meant the state had to pay for your counsel. But you can reinterpret it to mean that.
That was step one. Step two, I mean, that will only get you so far. There is no text in the Constitution that you could reinterpret to create a right to abortion, for example. So you need something else. The something else is called the doctrine of “Substantive Due Process.” Only lawyers can walk around talking about substantive process, in as much as it’s a contradiction in terms. If you referred to substantive process or procedural substance at a cocktail party, people would look at you funny. But, lawyers talk this way all the time.
What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.
Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.
Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process...
It’s one thing for a state to amend it’s libel law and say, “We think that public figures shouldn’t be able to sue.” That’s fine. But the courts have said that the First Amendment, which never meant this before, now means that if you are a public figure, that you can’t sue for libel unless it’s intentional, malicious. So that’s one way to do it.
Another example is the Constitution guarantees the right to be represented by counsel. That never meant the state had to pay for your counsel. But you can reinterpret it to mean that.
That was step one. Step two, I mean, that will only get you so far. There is no text in the Constitution that you could reinterpret to create a right to abortion, for example. So you need something else. The something else is called the doctrine of “Substantive Due Process.” Only lawyers can walk around talking about substantive process, in as much as it’s a contradiction in terms. If you referred to substantive process or procedural substance at a cocktail party, people would look at you funny. But, lawyers talk this way all the time.
What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.
Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.
Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process...
We have already had this discussion...
The definition I cite is the one that society has overwhelmingly supported thoughout history and currently in polls and at the voting both. That is the definition that is the focus of this debate, it is the one that all the amendments are trying to protect and that the gay lobby is trying to throw out in favor of their own broader definition. To bring up any other definition is a red herring (it distracts from the definition debated) and an attempt to shift the burden of proof to everyone accept yourself (it attempts to substitute a definition that is more friendly to your side and then force others to justify rejecting that definition). Both are dishonest.
You are already repeating your argument without even acknowledging the arguments against it; namely the fact that we are discussing the social and legal definition of marriage and the fact that society overwhelmingly defines it as between a man and a woman.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Don't throw "dishonest" in my face, when you're the one being dishonest. You stand by "marriage is defined" approach, yet conveniently ignore that words can and do have more than one definitive meaning, while "cherry picking" the one that suits your argument.
If it's a "social and legal" argument, then do cite where it states that legally (Constitutional or otherwise) a marriage is only and for only an opposite sex couple? Because what "society defines", doesn't make it necessarily right. At one point black-people where property (Dred Scott v. Sandford), because society deemed it so.
I believe that you are the one that is confused on substantive rights within the constitution. Stanford Law
Different than Substantive due process – but, there are substantive rights within the constitution Shag…
Remember - you are the one banting it about…
So, you are determining what the proper outcome of the opinion of the Supreme Court should be. No wonder you love quoting dissent… Remember Shag, it is the highest court in the land – our laws live and die by that court. Current opinion is what counts. If the court decides to be active, that is what the court is. All of Scalia’s dissents can’t change that. It will swing the other way eventually, it always does (the early 1800s supreme court was very active).
The Abortion Controversy: A Documentary History
But, without a declaration on when life begins (the founding fathers believed it was at ‘quickening’) the fetus isn’t protected. There is no statement of life in the constitution – I keep asking for you to show me where that text is, and you keep ignoring me.
Are you related to the man Shag? Or do you just blindly follow his decrees? And yes, he is against abortions – but he is a realist enough to know that without an amendment it can’t be made illegal. There is no clear constitutional solution to this problem – so without one, the court can’t declare them unconstitutional (or constitutional for that matter).
The states cannot infringe on the rights stated in the constitution, and until there is a constitutional amendment regarding beginning of life, the states cannot arbitrarily decide to ban abortions. Until that point the fetus isn’t ‘life’ and has no rights. The states (and in fact it was on the Colorado ballot this year, soundly defeated 73.5% to 26.5%) can vote in amendments that state when life begins – but, it will be struck down as soon as any case regarding that law rises to the Supreme Court.
And you might find Scalia ‘brilliant’ (blick) but there are plenty who find him contradictory at best – this was interesting regarding his viewpoints on allowing international law to shape our business law, but not our personal rights (Scalia has always been adept at picking and choosing when it supports his view point – sort of the supreme cherry picker I guess
). I have lots and lots of these Shag. I personally find the man egotistical and bordering on elitist, well, in fact he certainly wanders over to elitism with his whole textualism and original meaning arguments as unapproachable, residing on some sort of ‘correct’ pedestal. That is, until he needs to go with original intent to back his opinion. Well, enough on your ‘god’ Scalia. And you do have to remember all the stuff you quote from him is just his opinion. There is lots and lots of opinion out there that contradicts his, but I am not going to make this a Supreme Court opinion/dissent pissing contest as much as you would like it to go there Shag.
And even better – in the next 4 years there will be probably 3 seats vacant in the Supreme Court, and dozens and dozens within other federal courts (most importantly the appeals courts). There will probably be no way that Roe vs Wade is overturned in the next 20 years, unless an amendment is passed. So, if you want to change this, people who are on the pro life side of this equation had better start working for that amendment.
But, back to something far more interesting…
You are avoiding your statement “A fetus is either a life or is not. That is dependent on your moral views and values.” But, you now have added something even more eye opening… “That would be especially the case with any amendment that defines life. When life begins will be determined by each voter individually by their own morals and values. The resulting amendment, in defining life, would be a reflection of society's morals and values.“ So, until the point when society dictates to women and declares conception as life, should we overrule the individual’s moral views and values? Or, Shag, maybe the individual rights should be steamrolled in favor of the (in this case) minority’s morals and values. You keep saying that ‘most’ people would say that life begins at conception, but, I haven’t seen anything that relates to that fact. I realize we can parry back and forth on this regarding polls and source, but I believe if it truly was a majority that believes life begins at conception, and abortions should be criminalized that this question could have been resolved long ago with an amendment. Heck, just the result here in Colorado this past election overwhelming points to public opinion not wanting an amendment dictating that life begins at conception.
For now, it will remain dependent on the individual's morals and values, I think just as the founding fathers would have liked it. (Quick shag – find anti abortion sentiment among the founding fathers, you won’t be able to because they-and society at the time-believed life began with ‘quickening’, and abortions were very legal up until that point…)
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Fox, you keep hiding behind legal decisions and cannot explain your reasoning behind your claim that the fetus is a potential life, and not a life.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
You guys really need to specify "human life", as opposed to just "life". Obviously a fertilized egg is alive, therefore life. Whether it's a human being is debatable.
I'll go back to lurker mode now, as I learned long ago that it is futile to debate this topic.
I'll go back to lurker mode now, as I learned long ago that it is futile to debate this topic.
Foss, I don't need to explain any reasoning behind the claim that the fetus is 'potential' life, do I? This isn't about any definition that I have, the constitutional question hinges on the definition of beginning of life that society will have. Until the point that society creates 'law' (a federal amendment), then abortion will be a individual decision, based on individual morals, values, faith, etc. (like Shag stated
). I happen to agree that it should remain an individual decision, and not a societal one. But, where I place the 'beginning of life' point is a non-issue here, isn't it?
And it is an individual issue, isn't it? Since quid pro quo doesn't seem to apply to you, should I really explain my reasoning here? Heck, you don't even know my personal stand on abortion do you? And, in this argument, my personal stand doesn't make any difference. I am assuming you are pro life, from your dead baby posts - however I could be wrong. But, does your personal stand make a difference in the debate?
And yes, Marcus, (you naughty lurker....
), currently I don't need to delve into the question 'human life'. There are of course philosophic theories and biological theories. However I think the question you are really wanting an answer for (rather than Foss' very black and white question) is should we be making a distinction between a potential human, or a human with potential?
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
"And yes, Marcus, (you naughty lurker.... ), currently I don't need to delve into the question 'human life'. There are of course philosophic theories and biological theories. However I think the question you are really wanting an answer for (rather than Foss' very black and white question) is should we be making a distinction between a potential human, or a human with potential?
Very well stated Fox.
Now, since no one here can definetively state when life begins, doesn't my belife about it's beginning make sense?
At least what I belive has some degree of credibility as compared to no one, including the government, and the courts comming up with anything near credible.
Bob.
Very well stated Fox.
Now, since no one here can definetively state when life begins, doesn't my belife about it's beginning make sense?
At least what I belive has some degree of credibility as compared to no one, including the government, and the courts comming up with anything near credible.
Bob.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
:bsflag:Foss, I don't need to explain any reasoning behind the claim that the fetus is 'potential' life, do I? This isn't about any definition that I have, the constitutional question hinges on the definition of beginning of life that society will have. Until the point that society creates 'law' (a federal amendment), then abortion will be a individual decision, based on individual morals, values, faith, etc. (like Shag stated
I happen to agree that it should remain an individual decision, and not a societal one. But, where I place the 'beginning of life' point is a non-issue here, isn't it?
And it is an individual issue, isn't it? Since quid pro quo doesn't seem to apply to you, should I really explain my reasoning here? Heck, you don't even know my personal stand on abortion do you? And, in this argument, my personal stand doesn't make any difference. I am assuming you are pro life, from your dead baby posts - however I could be wrong. But, does your personal stand make a difference in the debate?
And yes, Marcus, (you naughty lurker....
I'm not asking for you to regurgitate what you know about Roe v. Wade. I'm asking you to explain your claim that a fetus is merely a potential life. You made the claim, so back it up. Evidently you don't have the courage, as you're dodging the question.
So be it.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Let's be honest here; it doesn't matter if you think a "human life" begins at sperm-to-egg contact or if it begins at the moment of birth. A zygote, blastocyst or embryo does only have a potential, as many a thing can happen naturally to end it before birth.
The argument should be is itr okay/moral/correct etc. to end that potential at the mother's descretion.
The argument should be is itr okay/moral/correct etc. to end that potential at the mother's descretion.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Don't tell me what the argument should be, douchebag, if I want your opinion, I'll address you.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Even though that wasn't JUST for you, that was a nasty way of saying "yeah, you're correct", baboon.
ford nut
Local nut case
Back on topic anyone ?
Thousands protest after California bans gay marriage
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZLfo4AAHqrO_INuEo2AlI3xAXtg
I don't think its over yet in Cal.
Sounds like a long legal battle has just started.
Meanwhile on the other side of the states.
Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/n...8800&en=f24a9509e53ce37f&ei=5087 &oref=slogin
Marriage equality moving forward.
Arkansas proves what a backwards state it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12savage.html?ref=opinion
Tell me thats not screwed up.
Thousands protest after California bans gay marriage
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZLfo4AAHqrO_INuEo2AlI3xAXtg
I don't think its over yet in Cal.
Sounds like a long legal battle has just started.
Meanwhile on the other side of the states.
Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/n...8800&en=f24a9509e53ce37f&ei=5087 &oref=slogin
Marriage equality moving forward.
Arkansas proves what a backwards state it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12savage.html?ref=opinion
Tell me thats not screwed up.
Questions that continue to go unanswered by Foss… (a rather artful dodger himself....
)Post #51…
Foss, there isn't anything other than my faith, my doctor and my body that tells me when life begins. So, when does fetus turn into validated life? Who tells you, what tells you when that point is? ?
And does it belong in the constitution?
Post #80
Oh, since you asked, not all that nicely I may add Foss, yes I do have children, biological ones if you are really that interested, quid pro quo, do you?
So, pony up David - I will...
Oh, I asked the lords of the site if they could move all the abortion posts to their own thread -maybe we should wait a bit posting abortion stuff here to see if they start a new thread for us... thx
To paraphrase your little Caulfield quote: "dishonest people hate it when you call them dishonest". Seems to hold true for you.
Your the one working to redefine marriage in this debate. The definition that the vast majority of society in every change they have, is behind, you want to reject. Because I am trying to maintain some consistency in this debate and stick by the obvious definition that is in question here, you wrongly accuse men of cherry picking when it is obvious to everyone here that it is you who is dishonestly cherry picking.
Again, the burden of proof is not on me here. It is on you. The fact that every time it is put up for a vote, society supports the definition of marriage I pointed out and is now a law in many states further proves my point. That is the definition that most of society supports and the definition that gay advocates what to reject, so it is the definition in question. To attempt to substitute your own definition in its place in the middle of the debate shows your dishonest nature and that you ultimately don't have a strong position to argue, hence the reliance on cheap arguing tactics to avoid reason.
And don't try and bring up that false analogy of comparing the gay marriage movement to the issue of slavery. It is a false analogy for a whole host of reasons and you know it. Just a couple of differences that prove it to be a false analogy; the gay marriage thing is based on behavior, and the view that black people were property was not held by most of society, only the south. It was a contentious issue in the country from day one and blew up into a civil war. Whereas, in regards to gay marriage, the vast majority of society supports the definition I have given.
It is on you to convince that majority that their definition is wrong, not on us to convince you of anything. Instead, all you do is work to marginalize.
In the past on this issue you have misrepresented the opposing point of view, made fallacious arguments, wrongly claimed my arguments are fallacious (but unwilling to show how so, when asked) and gone so far as to effectively making blatant and baseless personal attacks (calling me a "bigot"). Even when your fallacious arguments are pointed out, you have seen fit to continue using them, Which proves your lack of intellectual integrity in the area of gay marriage. It also show that if anyone is intolerant here, it is you.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Two things:
1) How am I "cherry picking", when I am saying marriage has more than one definition and you're the one dismissing all but one specific definition?
2) You didn't answer my question.
"If it's a "social and legal" argument, then do cite where it states that legally (Constitutional or otherwise) a marriage is only and for only an opposite sex couple?"
1) How am I "cherry picking", when I am saying marriage has more than one definition and you're the one dismissing all but one specific definition?
2) You didn't answer my question.
"If it's a "social and legal" argument, then do cite where it states that legally (Constitutional or otherwise) a marriage is only and for only an opposite sex couple?"