Romney and Republicans Wrong On Abortion by Jongsstraw

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I've been busy so I've been brief to the point of being cryptic, but here's the outline of the problem I have with 'Hero's' argument:

"The 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized are "citizens" but goes on to say that the State cannot deny a "person" their basic right to life without Due Process."

Taking the 'due process' part first - drone strikes have been 'successfully' :O launched against US citizens abroad (let alone the generic protected 'person' - not necessarily a citizen - he refers to). The strikes preceded a guilty verdict, a trial, or even an indictment, which is a conspicuous absence of 'due process'. My question to 'Hero' about drone strikes was to find out if his argument about due process was a matter of fishing out a phrase of convenience, or one of conviction. He can't answer the question of whether he supports drone strikes or not, nor can he indicate under what circumstances. A simple nod to due process seems to be all that's required.

Taking the 'person' argument next, there is in fact no definition of personhood in the constitution.

I consider 'Hero's' argument against abortion due to the protection of 'persons' afforded by 'due process' to be invalid based on two significant shortcomings
- his inability to invoke due process as a protection under all circumstances, and
- the lack of a 'personhood' definition in the constitution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:25 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
I don't go on about superbugs.

There are things you go on about. But superbugs and forced abortion are not amongst them.

Strawmen is their modus operandi. They invent some outrageous topic or position, tell everyone that is what you're about, and shoot that down instead of addressing the issues you actually do go on about. Fucking liars. Then they sit back and enjoy watching their prey defend themselves against these bizarre accusations.

I used to think RWED was dysfunctional. Now I see it is actually psychopathic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:05 PM

DALEK!

What strawmen? DT did talk about forced abortion in China. He also talked about coerced abortions. I don't know about any superbugs arguments, but DT did just go on about how a conspiracy theory would be logical. He is also the same person that does not believe that certain chemicals don't break down in nature and that people are trying to purposely contaminate all ground water.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=48732&mid=
847452

This is what DT posted in response to information about the history of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and to the research article outlining the discovery of a new resistance factor in New Delhi, India -

Not PN, deadly serious new superbug hospital-centric

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:45 AM
Bagram. Need I say more?

Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:09 PM
And the winner is...
Quote: Originally posted by Bytemite:
>_> At the risk of sounding like a fringe nut (like?) someone should get on finding out if this new gene was lab produced lickety-split.
Ya think?
It's Bagram. It's the Auschwitz of the 21st century. When people say to me...
"okay, so they have torture chambers and gas chambers and afghan children in cages being experimented on, and sure it looks just like Auschwitz from the air, and tens of thousands or more afghans have disappeared... but if you could see it up close, which you can, because no unauthorized people or cameras are allowed within five miles of the camp... You'd see that there's no comparison because there aren't 1.2 million bodies buried there."
.. I say "...yet."
I think we have ourselves a modern day Mengele

Thursday, June 09, 2011 2:37 PM
Allow me to pre-emptively add that I'm sure a lot of US service men and women fly into Bagram Airbase with no idea what is going on in the camp. OTOH, the mayor of Auschwitz had no idea what was going on in the camp.
Back in the early days of the war, before they zoned it off and covered everything with screens (exactly what the germans did, that's why they look alike from the air) there were some folks who got in and took pictures. Afghan children being experimented on, kept in animal cages, 30 to a cage. I remember the pictures, it's the sort of image that burns in your brain like the cats and dogs in the chinese market or the machine guns set up outsidde the stained glass windows at a rwandan church.
I recall they even got to interview a few before the brass realized what was happening, and someone at intel called in the dogs. I remember too the little page 38 story about local ban on cameras specific to bagram. Funny that, said the media, but not noteworthy, surely.

Saturday, June 11, 2011 4:01 PM
It's not black magic. Restriction enzymes are available at any university or hospital. It involves taking a known gene from one bacteria or other vector and transfer it to another bacteria or other vector. Anyone could do it. They'd just have to be a total lunatic with no concept of humanity.
Of course, if you pack 30 children into an animal cage to expeiment on them, you'd probably fit the bill. Nowhere has a higher density of such people than Bagram, and I mean nowhere on Earth. i might pick North Korea as my second choice.
At any rate, this is more likely than that the gene just jumped species without the sort of helping hand Byte is suggesting in a move which is incredibly unethical, but not technically difficult. I could do it, and I suspect so could SignyM, but neither of us would, just illustrating how very possible this is for someone with no compuctions about experimenting on children.

Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:39 PM
Oh and for the record, you should read up on AIDS. Then perhaps you would eventually become less glib.
BTW, Conjugation is a random process. It would take forever to spread. Once the gene has been isolated, reproducing it however you wanted could be a matter of hours.
Have you ever done any genetic engineering?

Sunday, June 12, 2011 6:00 PM
But seriously, don't you think that a torture-central experimentation zone concentration camp is an odd place for a deadly transference of a known deadly gene to take place without raising one ounce of suspicion?
It's really much easier to do this intentionally than unintentionally. Of course, someone was a real doctor who discovered it.
Could, of course, just be another overblown media panic story.
My money is on medical experimentation. The whole situation is just too damn familiar.

Does this refresh your memory, DT?
How about you CTS? And, uh, care to take back your slander?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:46 AM

DREAMTROVE

1kiki

First,

I don't really have any issue with what I posted in the past, nor with my recent characterization of it as pure speculation. I think that we run shady operations that we shut all international organizations from and screen from all ground, aerial and space photography, and that is suspect and not dissimilar to what the nazis did to protect the secrets of their camps. It's logical to assume that anything which went on in those camps goes on in ours, especially as the stories drift out. I don't see why you would spend so much effort to defend them.

What bugs me more is your recent behavior on the board, and digging through old posts and quoting them to try to make a point that your vicera towards another user is justified rather than accept the obvious fact that it is unwelcome. Does it not occur to you that if you were in a college classroom and you audiotaped your professor and then played back for him something he said in class that was inaccurate and using that as a justification that he raise your grade that even if you were right the real result would be that he liked you less and resented you more? It's not that humans are never wrong, it's that humans know they are wrong, and when you try to prove the point,you try to place yourself above them as never wrong.

I feel like you have slipped off the deep end. Maybe if the sockpuppet allegations are true, a long time ago, but allow me:

Your stated goal just now was to defame the character of dreamtrove, which is why you brought up the bagram disease story. I had completely forgotten it, now that you remind me I don't find myself feeling any different about it. Of course official channels would invent an origin for it, they always do. That proves nothing. But more importantly, the bagram plague wasn't the topic of discussion, it was just something completely unrelated that you selected as what you thought was my weakest point. You did this to defame my character so as to prevent people from listening to my current arguments on an unrelated topic. To that end you searched through the archives for what you thought might be damning evidence that in the past I had made wild speculations, even if they were stated as such. That means you actually put effort into try to research defaming my character to prevent other people from listening to me. I hope you see that is deeply psychotic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 3:07 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
What strawmen?

oh please
Quote:

He is also the same person that does not believe that certain chemicals don't break down in nature

that's the second time you've made this bizarre accusation. what the fuck are you on about?
Quote:

and that people are trying to purposely contaminate all ground water.

oh, and i was just part of a survey team that tallied opinions on this, it turns out 80% of the population agrees with me. Fracking is deliberate contamination of the groundwater. Yes, they're getting something out of it, but they know full well they're contaminating the ground water, and since two of the major companies involved, halliburton and bechtel, also have a billion dollar international business selling potable water, I doubt they see this contamination as just an undesired effect, they probably see it as a side benefit. In fact, crunch a few numbers you'll see that the water services they plan to provide to contaminated areas can actually pay the entire operation. Call that a conspiracy if you want, but there's not a lot of theory to it, it's all there in black and white.

And yeah, i mentioned the force abortions in china because it was relevant at the time. I didn't go on about it, it's not the main reason I oppose abortion, I just had to show that it existed because someone said it didn't.

My main objections are religious. First, Taoist, and second, jewish, because I'm also a jew.

Abortion as a means of population control was decided at in a eugenics conference in 1937. It had been bandied about for a while as a means of culling target populations, but when planned parenthood Margaret Sanger and the head of its predecessor oraganization controlled parenthood Marie Stokes together with FDRs chief economist JM Keynes got together under the leadership of, and I am not making this up, German Chancellor Adolph Hitler, they decided to move forward with plan. The targets populations specifically were those deemed most a threat to the purity of the white race, being jews, slavs, irish and Mediterranean bloodlines. After the war this was expanded to include blacks and Asians. It's worth noting that not all evil comes from Nazi Germany, even when it does. The Nazis were much more concerned about minority white infections, but the americans on the panel were more concerned about non-whites, and were the ones to launch plans to cull the populations of asia and black america. (some plans to cull africa were launched under the WHO in '52, but others were blocked, and the result was no abortion for africa) The goal of the abortionists was to popularize abortion first, to escalate the number of operations performed from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand prior to making it legal, so there would be a need to legalize it. To the best of my knowledge the lifesaving abortion was always available and I'm sure it always will be. This is really about elective abortion, and the use of propaganda and proselytizing to promote the idea that killing your child is the best course of action.

If al qaeda, instead of flying planes into buildings, decided to attack americans by releasing entertainment that included songs with lyrics glorifying suicide and movies in which people whose lives sucked got back at their tormenters by killing themselves, and then american suicide rates went up as a result, sure there would be sheeple who would pretend that it had never happened, that we hadn't been attacked. but the result would be the same, or worse.

You just have to have a little imagination to see how this is a weapon of war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 4:45 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Your challenge didn't say "Show me where I said something in a non-sarcastic way, which I knew to be false, but presented the opposite to be true."

I think the spirit of the challenge excludes obvious falsehoods like sarcasm. You don't really win any points by holding him to the letter of the challenge, at least not with onlookers like me.

Since it's quite hard to indicate and discern sarcasm in the typed word, I go with what someone actually writes. If I had claimed that I knew what Rappy *meant* when he typed those words and his challenge, he'd start braying that there's no way I could ever know his meaning or intent.

He said quite plainly that he had never, ever posted anything here which he knew to be untrue, period. His claim is that it never happened, nobody could ever claim it did, and he'd pay $1000 to Nick if it could be shown.

It's been shown quite clearly, and Rappy is going to weasel out of paying because he's a chickenshit with no honor or integrity, as I've already pointed out in regards to his refusal to apologize to Magons for accusing her of saying things which she quite clearly never said.

I said at the outset that Rappy hasn't the honor or dignity to own up to his mistakes, apologize, and move on.

In this, I have been proven correct more than once in the last few days.

If you were capable of the objectivity, logic, and rationality you claim to value so much, you'd realize the truth of it as well.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Can a fetus vote ? Can a fetus get a driver's license ? Can a fetus buy alcohol ?

No.

Can a 7 year old do any of those things, legally ?

No.

Is a 7 yr old an "animal" any more or less than we ? Or a fetus ?

As a former fetus, as we all are, I tend to side w/ the whole " they're human " definition.

You can believe "they're human" all you want, but that doesn't make them subject to the same constitutional protections as citizens, and as the right has pointed out time and again, non-citizens aren't guaranteed any protections at all by the Constitution. If they were, we couldn't just kill people at random with drone strikes without due process, we couldn't just indefinitely detain people forever without due process, without charges or evidence ever being shown or filed, and we couldn't torture people.

Republicans argue that we can indeed do all of these things, because "people" don't have the same rights as "citizens", and a fetus is, by definition, not a citizen because it's not "naturally born".

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks for agreeing with me - you don't have answers.

I think the answer your looking for might be found in a basic 'reading for comprehension' course or some sort of medication and therapy to deal with your delusions.

Here's the sequence...you ask, I answer, you don't like or understand answer, you demand new answer.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 6:11 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
that's the second time you've made this bizarre accusation. what the fuck are you on about?

It was part of our fracking argument. I brought up that some of the chemicals were not a concern because they would breakdown in nature pretty quickly. You refused to believe it.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:oh, and i was just part of a survey team that tallied opinions on this, it turns out 80% of the population agrees with me. Fracking is deliberate contamination of the groundwater. Yes, they're getting something out of it, but they know full well they're contaminating the ground water, and since two of the major companies involved, halliburton and bechtel, also have a billion dollar international business selling potable water, I doubt they see this contamination as just an undesired effect, they probably see it as a side benefit. In fact, crunch a few numbers you'll see that the water services they plan to provide to contaminated areas can actually pay the entire operation. Call that a conspiracy if you want, but there's not a lot of theory to it, it's all there in black and white.

Opinion does not make facts. You know what they say about opinions. We have been through this as well. I pointed out that it made little sense since municipalities could install treatment to remove the contamination cheaper that getting drinking water from outside sources.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:And yeah, i mentioned the force abortions in china because it was relevant at the time. I didn't go on about it, it's not the main reason I oppose abortion, I just had to show that it existed because someone said it didn't.

...and before that you were talking about women being coerced into abortions.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:My main objections are religious. First, Taoist, and second, jewish, because I'm also a jew.

Abortion as a means of population control was decided at in a eugenics conference in 1937. It had been bandied about for a while as a means of culling target populations, but when planned parenthood Margaret Sanger and the head of its predecessor oraganization controlled parenthood Marie Stokes together with FDRs chief economist JM Keynes got together under the leadership of, and I am not making this up, German Chancellor Adolph Hitler, they decided to move forward with plan. The targets populations specifically were those deemed most a threat to the purity of the white race, being jews, slavs, irish and Mediterranean bloodlines. After the war this was expanded to include blacks and Asians. It's worth noting that not all evil comes from Nazi Germany, even when it does. The Nazis were much more concerned about minority white infections, but the americans on the panel were more concerned about non-whites, and were the ones to launch plans to cull the populations of asia and black america. (some plans to cull africa were launched under the WHO in '52, but others were blocked, and the result was no abortion for africa) The goal of the abortionists was to popularize abortion first, to escalate the number of operations performed from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand prior to making it legal, so there would be a need to legalize it. To the best of my knowledge the lifesaving abortion was always available and I'm sure it always will be. This is really about elective abortion, and the use of propaganda and proselytizing to promote the idea that killing your child is the best course of action.

If al qaeda, instead of flying planes into buildings, decided to attack americans by releasing entertainment that included songs with lyrics glorifying suicide and movies in which people whose lives sucked got back at their tormenters by killing themselves, and then american suicide rates went up as a result, sure there would be sheeple who would pretend that it had never happened, that we hadn't been attacked. but the result would be the same, or worse.

Looks like your main objective is being a compete nutjob!

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:You just have to have a little imagination to see how this is a weapon of war.

A little imagination and a lot of crazy. Well, you got that!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 6:16 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Here's the sequence...you ask, I answer, you don't like or understand answer, you demand new answer.

Then see my argument further on where I had the time to outline it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Yes, I support drone strikes, no I don't support drone strikes, but keep in mind I support them, but no I don't support them...in other words, yes and no depending on the situation...just like all other forms of military action.

Can a person take the same stance on abortion?

Yes, I support abortion, no I don't support abortion, but keep in mind I support them, but no I don't support them...in other words, yes and no depending on the situation...just like all other forms of reproductive choice.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SOCKPUPPET:
DT,

You are arguing with someone whose own prime directive is exterminate and ya think you can appeal to their kinder inner nature? He may have a sense of style but you sir have sprung a wire loose in your circuitry. And don't think for a second I'm going to way in on your pet issue here 'cause sure as hell I ain't, and you damn well know what I think of it, and don't need me weighing in here to remind ya, or do I? Didn't think so. Now surely you have better things to do than to waste your time debating a pointless wedge issue with Nickerbot. Now git, move along.

Now that's getting pretty meta. Inception-level, even.

Sockpuppet/DT arguing with (and agreeing with, go figure) himself.

Whack-a-doodle-doo.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 12:27 PM

DREAMTROVE

Nick

I don't have beliefs in chemistry, I'm very well trained in the field. I took three years in the subject and I use it daily. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are, but you're just a dick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Then see my argument further on where I had the time to outline it.

Your argument shows why you are having so much trouble.

Lets recap starting with drone strikes.

You asked if I support them, I said it depends on the situation. You were not happy with my answer because you asked the wrong question. What you meant to ask was 'do you support drone strikes on American citizens?'

This relates into your other question about 14th Amendment protection for persons and/or citizens. You meant to ask 'do you think drone strikes on American citizens somehow violates their rights?'

Having spent all this time finally arriving at what you meant to ask so long ago...lets discuss: yes, drone strikes on American citizens can violate their rights and in those cases I would not support them. However in those few cases (I can only think of one...the guy in Yemen) their rights have not been violated, however I personally don't support those particular attacks for other reasons unrelated to their Constitutional status.

"What?" says you. "You didn't read all the operative clauses," says me.

Like I said before, read the whole fracking thing...even the parts you don't like. First of all, the 14th Amendment only applies to State action, not Federal and even then only to state action within that State's jurisdiction.

"Head hurts," says you.

Can the US kill its own citizens in military action without a declared war? Yes, yes we can. Landmark decision, Lincoln vs. Davis decided in 1865. I note for the record that this was prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment but well after the passage of...of...nobody? The 5th Amendment! '...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.'

The President has to power to wage war, he was authorized by Congress to take military action, an American citizen was killed. Yemen, Gettysburg, it's all good and legal. Btw, there was due process. Dude in Yemen could have returned to the US and sued for his right to wage war against his country...not our fault if he failed to seek his legal remedy. He'd have lost though...precedent goes back 150 years.

There is also the Exigent Circumstances exception, like when a police officer shoots an armed subject or makes a warrantless search pursuant to arrest or chases a fleeing subject into your closest and finds the pot you've been smoking while reading the Constitution.

Hmm...anything else.

"Person isn't defined, how can we know what they meant?" says you. Same way Private First Class Santiago found the chow hall at Gitmo despite it not being in the manual. You follow the hungry guys at chow time, or in legal speak...you apply the rules of statutory construction and learn that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a person is a person whether its in plain language or common law. For example, '"we the people in order to blah blah blah" is a nice statement containing not one definition for a single word it contains. What is this "we"? What could they possibly mean by "the"?

A person is...a person. You want more detail I refer you to cogito ergo sum. Look it up...it'll blow your mind dude.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:29 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I asked open ended questions to get your views.

Your opinion was that 1) you didn't have any, and 2) there wasn't a definition. You COULD have expounded on due process, but failed to. Obviously it's not an important consideration. But even now you can’t settle on who gets due process. You say it's 'American citizens' when it comes to drone strikes. Then you say it's 'persons' when it comes to a fertilized egg, assuming for your argument that the fertilized egg is covered under a definition for 'person' - which you admit doesn't exist.

Your argument is one of convenience, lacking logic and internal consistency, as well as congruency with the real world.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I asked open ended questions to get your views.

Your opinion was that 1) you didn't have any, and 2) there wasn't a definition. You COULD have expounded on due process, but failed to. Obviously it's not an important consideration. But even now you can’t settle on who gets due process. You say it's 'American citizens' when it comes to drone strikes. Then you say it's 'persons' when it comes to a fertilized egg, assuming for your argument that the fertilized egg is covered under a definition for 'person' - which you admit doesn't exist.

Your argument is one of convenience, lacking logic and internal consistency, as well as congruency with the real world.

Your comparing eggs and drone strikes and you think I lack logic?

First of all your citizen/person distinction is moot because the Constituon applies to all persons, not just citizens.

As for eggs, as I said the Constutuion says a citizen is a person who has been born or naturalized in the United States which suggests that status as a person comes prior to being naturalized...or born.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:43 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Nick

I don't have beliefs in chemistry, I'm very well trained in the field. I took three years in the subject and I use it daily. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are, but you're just a dick.

Apparently you are have not been trained well enough.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:46 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
First of all your citizen/person distinction is moot because the Constituon applies to all persons, not just citizens.

As for eggs, as I said the Constutuion says a citizen is a person who has been born or naturalized in the United States which suggests that status as a person comes prior to being naturalized...or born.

...and of course all of this is moot because the US Constitution allows abortions. That was the findings of the Supreme Court who holds the only opinion that matters on that subject.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
...and of course all of this is moot because the US Constitution allows abortions. That was the findings of the Supreme Court who holds the only opinion that matters on that subject.

The Supreme Court has said that the State has an interest in preserving life that allows it to ban abortions. The same decision says a woman has a right to privacy in her own body and medical choices. Roe talks about those two interests and which one wins and awards a spit decision. If the fetus is viable, then the State wins, otherwise the woman wins. That is why in most states you can't get an abortion in the last trimester of a pregnancy.

However...that is based on forty year old science. Science will continue to push back viability. This will in turn diminish the woman's window of rights. Should science push viability back to conception then Roe v. Wade can be used to bar abortions entirely. I would suggest that if science is the only limiting factor then it's wrong to allow the slaughter of children simply because we are not advanced enough scientifically to recognize the state's interest is supreme.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:55 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The Supreme Court has said that the State has an interest in preserving life that allows it to ban abortions. The same decision says a woman has a right to privacy in her own body and medical choices. Roe talks about those two interests and which one wins and awards a spit decision. If the fetus is viable, then the State wins, otherwise the woman wins. That is why in most states you can't get an abortion in the last trimester of a pregnancy.

However...that is based on forty year old science. Science will continue to push back viability. This will in turn diminish the woman's window of rights. Should science push viability back to conception then Roe v. Wade can be used to bar abortions entirely. I would suggest that if science is the only limiting factor then it's wrong to allow the slaughter of children simply because we are not advanced enough scientifically to recognize the state's interest is supreme.

Thing is after viablity women may end pregnacy by inducing labor, so at that point abortion is a moot point. As soon as we develope the iron womb abortions will no tbe needed at all.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

First of all your citizen/person distinction is moot because the Constituon applies to all persons, not just citizens.

That's a load of crap. If you don't believe me, ask the child laborers in Myanmar. Or the detainees in Gitmo. I am assured that they are "persons" and that they are also not subject to any of the protections of the Constitution.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:51 AM