13-Year-Old Girl Gets Publicly Shouted Down When She Compares Abortion To Slavery

The Dem's have been doing it for years. Nothing personal but more than glad to dish some of it back.

 

I couldn't tell you what has a soul or if it has a soul when the event occurred. Dolphins and whales are pretty intelligent mammals. Animal cognition is a very debatable subject. Have you ever looked at the topics section? It list's how many discussions are available or going on. It does not list each topic as a debate. I read the topics and if I find them interesting I may join in the topic and discuss it or summit an opinion. I am here to learn as much about what the other side may think as I am to opine. If I claimed to know all the answers then what is the purpose of joining the discussion?

In your post 558 you quote "In order to claim a human child defacto exists - such that it can develop - you first have to prove that this child exists - and you have not. My question to you is "When does a human child exist?" I'm pretty sure your answer and mine is just a matter of the timeline.

 

It it not just a matter of timeline... although that is part of it.. It takes time for a human to be created. One thing people seldom do - (which is kind of the point of my questions in relation to the soul) is define terms.

In order to stated when a living human exists - one first has to define what this means - what characteristics need to be present -and so on.
You have all kinds of mindless claims being made - even by lawmakers such as the claim that the zygote is a Homo sapien. The is - by definition - preposterous nonsense as the zygote has almost none of the requisite characteristics required by the biological subject matter domain - human taxonomy. Kingdom, Phylum, Genus, Family, Class Order and so on.

One could also take another tact and try to define personhood - what is it about a human that we value ? - Thoughts, love, pleasure, hardship, friends, family, stuff like that. What is it about life that is valuable ? Any person can be made to beg for death under extreme torture - In other words life if not worth much without quality of life.

There are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.

The Neurological perspective is the most commonly accepted when it comes to personhood - keeping in mind that this is a Philosophical question. That the entity has significant brain function - the ability to have thoughts / cognition. When this stops - even though a human is still living - say being kept alive by a machine - the plug is pulled and the dirt nap begins.

This is roughly at 22-24 weeks. This is when I would consider the fetus a living human.

 

Yes, and...?

 

What else would you like me to say - The poster asked at what point I considered a living human to exist - and that was my answer.

 

Are you saying that a zygote is a living human?

 

Abortion is much worse than slavery....

 

Sure, but during the fight, the thing being fought for isn't a right, is it?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The god stuff belongs in the Religion forum.....it has nothing to do with rights.


uh, duhhh the ancients didn't know an embryo from a potato...


Again, "we are all God's children belongs in the religion forum....it has no place discussing science or law or rights...'


DO YOU ASK YOUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS IF THOSE PEOPLE AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER, THE ONES FLOATING IN THE RIVER AND THE ONES IN CAGES......ARE THEY ALL GODS CHILDREN?


YUP, not YOURS , NOT anyone's but hers....so why are people sticking their fat self righteous noses in her business???


So what? That is not a fact and has NOTHING to do with rights, laws or science..or facts...NOTHING ...
I don't know why you threw in this bizarre scenario but if a man punches a woman and causes her to lose her baby HE, not THEY, will be charged.

He will be charged due to the UVVA....bet you haven't a clue what that is, do you?

And WTF does this have to do with a woman's right to her own body??

Uh, NO, if abortion is banned then she should be charged with murder. Don't the Anti-Choicers say that abortion is murdering a "baby" ??

No one said the FETUS is infringing on the woman's rights...but banning abortion is destroying women's right to their own body, a heinous act.


The fetus IS part of the woman it's in which is why she has the right to do anything she wants with it...

Probably not since the "godies" are the ones who want to stick their interfering self righteous hypocritical noses in every body else's business.

Women wouldn't have nosy busy bodies with no life of their own tryin to take away their basic human rights...

GOOD GRIEF! IT sounds like there's not much holding you back from a vile violent life of hatred !!!

Well, they knew it wasn't a kangaroo but so what? That proves nothing about women's right to their own bodies...

UHH, where have you been? There are many websites, this site has an Abortion Forum....abortion is widely discussed....So WTF are you talking about???

The right to one's own body SHOULD be fiercely defended...with out that we are SLAVES.

HOW MANY LIVES HAVE PRO-CHOICE GROUPS CREATED?

To compare the unbelievable suffering, torture, horrors of what Jews went through to the quick painless death of a fetus IS BEYOND REPUGNANT...

...AND MINIMIZES and DISMISSES WHAT THE JEWS WENT THROUGH....WHAT A GROSS INSULT to JEWS and all others killed in wars

 

What TF ???

 

Slavery existed when people's RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY WAS TAKEN AWAY..

EXACTLY what Anti-Choicers want to do to women....

 

So you want to be more like the Dems! Good, keep going and pretty soon you'll realize women have rights, too!!!

 

Are you someone who would enact legislation that would criminalize abortion after that point?

 

It's an unrecognized right.

Unrecognized rights have been powerful motivators in American history.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.​

 

Good question - the answer to which is no. There is a difference between a moral stance/argument and a legal argument. While the two are related - the legal bar is much higher.

Even if one is able make a valid moral claim - (which prior to this point I don't think one exists) - now we have a case of competing rights from a legal perspective.

There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law) In a republic the minimum bar for "legitimacy" is 2/3rds majority - I would claim 75% should be used as the bar in this case.

Regardless, to the legal question itself it we have competing rights. We then must weigh these rights on the scale of Justice.

The rights of the woman weigh heavy on one side - Constitutionally protected and so on. On the other side we have the rights of this fetus - and some good arguments for the personhood of the fetus at this point.

How do we value the rights of "many think it is a person at this point". How do we value "Experts disagree" - even if we could manage some kind of consensus at this point with respect to personhood (something that does not exist prior) - that does not equate to the consensus believing that law is justified.

It would be an anathema to make law on the basis of "experts disagree" = We don't know. In this case the "we don't know" is not as strong as prior to this point but - it is still grey in many ways - which must effect the value we place on the fetus.

The rights of the woman then win out - weigh more heavily on the scales of Justice.

Are you willing to personally use physical violence to prevent some woman from having an abortion after 22 weeks ? If not - then one should not be getting the state to do one's dirty work. I gather you are not willing to do this - and neither am I.

 

A good principle, one that probably applies to the Oregon baker who refused to bake a message cake. I think the guy is a prig, but...

 

So, those of us who aren't interested in your culture wars get to watch you guys fight it out?

 

I also agreed with the Baker ruling - the finding of not guilty. The Pizza guy on the other hand was found guilty - and rightly so.

 

We need to avoid crowding people as much as possible.

 

What is?

 

Agreed - but Pizza guy was over the top IMO

 

Where to draw the line...?

 

In your opinion? Your opinion on when the government should step in is all over the place. You have this 'physical harm' standard but yet you are totally unable to state the harm that is caused by the Pizza guy's discrimination. You just can't be taken seriously as a limited government person.

 

Discrimination - back of the bus kind of stuff - signs "no blacks allowed"

 

Okay, and how does that even get CLOSE to 'pizza guy?' I'll be surprised if you respond!