glassjester
Well-known member
I'm sure Jefferson meant to add a footnote to his list of unalienable rights... life*, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
*unless it's inconvenient.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
I'm sure Jefferson meant to add a footnote to his list of unalienable rights... life*, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
*unless it's inconvenient.
"Otherwise your answer should be obvious."
If your going to play coy...at least keep up with it.
Sure that's one reason.
Is aborting the product of rape equally selfish and inconvenient?
Hey, it's Mother's Day...do those child-less parents celebrate today?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
any particular reason a mother couldn't reconsider after birth and abandon a child conceived as the result of a rape?
Other then the law...no.
Neither of which is true, and it's disappointing that you've retreated to this sort of declarative position of late between us. The argument not moving forward in examination, I'll leave you with your other conversations and a word for the gallery.
For those who might be coming in late, the Court in Roe decided that the fundamental vestment of right and protection was tied to the ability of the infant to survive independent of the mother. This assignment of right was an arbitrary one. It was no more objectively true, no more logically necessary than any other standard, from conception, to brain waves, to breath. The Court managed it purely as a matter of fiat, an exercise of the state's power.
The Court erred, as it erred in the Scott decision and a number of others that have increased or prolonged human suffering. Reasonable men should examine and reject this failure and end the horror that attends it.
What everyone is in agreement on is that at the point of vestment, our right to be cannot be abrogated by the state absent horrific exception that is not and cannot be present in the unborn (the commission of murder, by way of illustration). All claims on the point of vestment are necessarily subjective expressions. While each has an argument for it and some may be objectively superior to others, none are a logical necessity, none can be said to be inevitable and independently verifiable...If we cannot establish when we should understand that right has vested we must protect the unborn from an act we may not with certainty establish exists as a power reserved to us.
This is one argument against abortion.
Another I've noted begins with the clear vestment of right and its protection in me. Assuming for the sake of argument that I have not committed an act at any point along my line of being that would permit the state to take my life, I challenge any man to look back along that chain and justify the divestment of my right, to establish their claim by a standard that is necessary, not arbitrary. What cannot be accomplished in that effort looking back is equally without justification looking forward from the moment of conception.
This is simply wrongheaded and misleading. The official determination specified as such: [Texas abortion law] is violative of the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth Amendment.
Any such mention of the fetus' "ability... to exist independently of the mother" consisted solely upon the medical notion of "viability", in the dual role of finding legal precedent for any particular theory of life (which was absent) and within the final ruling granting the state bounds for proscribing abortion.
Your objection here seems more the impassioned plea than reasoned rebuttal.
Wrong. Everybody is not in such an agreement. This notion presupposes a particular and selective theory of life..one of which is beyond the purview of the law. As noted by Blackmun:
| When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. |
| In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. |
Lest you solicit the court to proceed on a ruling by way of inexplicability...a virtual appeal to ignorance.
No such clear vestment exist.
Anti-abortion law (pre Roe/Wade) had complete exception for instances where the mother's life was in peril. These exception were entirely inconsistent with the idea of legal protection for the unborn under the 14th amendment (nor the defacto variety). Likewise, within abortion proceedings women were neither a principle nor accomplice while her sentence was significantly less than the penalties for murder.
There's simply no objective place to hang your hat...legal nor otherwise.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Which apparently ends the moment an infant can live without the mother. It's an excuse wrapped around the notion that viability produces right, however thinly sliced. In point of fact, Texas stated its interest and the Court held the interest could not attach prior to viability.
Stewart noted the intellectual inconsistency of the ruling, in that it attempted to use the 14th and Due Process, but historically that would call for the state (Texas) to meet a rational relations level of scrutiny, which the state did before the Court got creative with standards.
To quote him: "[T]he Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one."
Nothing wrong with passion where the defense of human life is concerned, but it remains entirely reasoned and you've yet to illustrate a deficiency on the point while declaring it soundly enough.
Well, not literally everyone. The suicidal, those so lost that they don't value any life, but I'm speaking to the rational who aren't in the grips of a merciless lack of perspective. They, most of us, overwhelmingly agree that at some point we possess right and that right cannot be abrogated short of some fairly horrific action on our part. The qualifying (and debated) actions aren't the stuff the unborn can manage.
And yet that is precisely what the Court does, choosing to draw its own arbitrary line in the sand at viability instead of following reason to the only certain safeguard of right against invasion to which we are not entitled.
Except the woman has no more right than I do to end the life of another human being and no empirical or objective way to distinguish the particular moment when that right attaches that gives the unborn equal standing before the law.
Rather, I call upon the Court to revoke a rule issued upon the back of ignorance, an intellectual dart throw founded in circular supposition by suggesting a right on the part of the woman in relation that it creates and using a standard that should not be applied by its own foundational justification (Due Process).
Of course it does. I have it in full. And you cannot rationally separate me from it moving back along my chain of being. You can only arbitrarily, emotionally decide that at THIS point you value something more and so I must not possess it.
Self-defense has ever been considered justifiable homicide, prickly as it can be to sort out.
I don't agree, supra. It's a thorny issue, but as between the mother and the unborn, the mother cannot be made to forfeit her life for a competing interest or you elevate the unborn above her. At that point, rationally, and that point alone, viability becomes of moment, as the child may only possess what it can lay claim to independently, against the life of the mother.
And once upon a time the penalty for killing your slave was what? Largely nothing. That's no argument.
To the contrary. Rights vest. There is no objective litmus for determining the point of that vestment. The only way then to be certain that right is protected against an unjust abrogation is to deny abortion at any point where right could be rationally said to exist. That point begins with conception, which must then act as the catch-all.
Each of the statements preceding the conclusion is objectively true. The conclusion is a logical necessity.
Eagles Wings
New member
Have any of you guys spent time sidewalk counseling?
This grass roots effort is saving lives.
There is training.
I'm impressed by you godly men who are convicted to protect the preborn.
This grass roots effort is saving lives.
There is training.
I'm impressed by you godly men who are convicted to protect the preborn.
Rehnquist quote; Stewart concurred.
Sounds like the oft commentary on the courts stepping upon the state's toes. Gay marriage rings a similar tone.
Not as being represented as the motivating theme of the argument. Which is hard to deny on the face of it.
Stuff and nonsense. The court simply could not rule on what's not available, they instead offered women to reach their own moral conclusion via their own theory of life in lieu of the state dictating it for them.
No less arbitrary, non-empirical or non-objective then the state of Texas' adoption of its own particular theory of life, effectively condemning women for freely, privately acting in their own interests.
Your vestment of right is not in question, what remains in question is the commencement of such. The law, specifically states' anti-abortion law has been inconsistent and ambiguous as to the status of rights and protections granted to the unborn. Though the state's objection to Roe presumed equal protection under the 14th amendment where none were shown to consistently, legally apply.
Hardly an argument for the reintroduction or defense of slavery...inconsistency (QED) retained and evidenced.
Your conclusion belies its entire premise; the point of vestment would indeed commence - by default - enforced by way of its very rationale. I'm quite sure you can see how this tactic would remain unacceptable by you if the conclusion in question didn't parallel quite so well with your particular bias.
I can't control how it sounds to you, quip. I suppose I could say that no one around here is going to confuse me with either gentlemen and no one on the right is claiming me as a philosophical brother in arms. That said, the fact remains that while I have a different political philosophy than either of them, the standard applied in Roe didn't follow their own foundation, as noted in the dissent. They were right. And it not only wasn't a rational necessity, it worked contrary to the necessary in favor of an arbitrarily applied litmus.
On passion;
I'm passionate about reason and right and the Court rejected the former and impinged on the latter. My ability to separate my moral objections from my rational examination and approach, especially in relation to the law, can be found easily enough in my defense of gay marriage and argument against attempts to legislate morality in contravention of a clear right.
I'm not asking them to and yet that's precisely what they did in giving an arbitrary distinction (viability) the power to deny right.
My argument and conclusion isn't founded in a moral objection and wouldn't involve the state in issuing a moral fiat. Rather, I offered and offer a rationalists objection to the imposition of the Court's subjective valuation.
A thief acts within his own interest, so that's an odd standard, but I'm not arguing for Texas or in defense of its approach.
I know, but you followed a quote and argument that was seated in the proposition that my rights have clearly vested with a denial that was out of place unless you objected to the premise you just agreed with. A misplaced point of objection then.
Sure. And so my arguments to illustrate the danger and deficiency in the Court's holding, and the issuance of rebuttal fashioned to protect all parties from the violation of a right we cannot abridge where present and one existing as likely in one point as any.
I'd agree with the idea that there was and remains a need for a consistent approach.
Addressed in my last.
The actual point being that your resting on tradition in how the woman was treated is no real argument.
Where all points stand equal and the potential for damage exists in every the only means to secure against intrusion and abrogation to which we are not entitled is to subsume them all in the earliest possible point of vestment. This is not an argument for that point, but a rational necessity, given.
I'm not trying to make any of us happy so it's a thing I can live with, assured that every other potential being in right is given the same opportunity.
glassjester
Well-known member
Still no answer here, Quip.
Must I need to explain to you the physical needs, circumstances and differentiation between incipient life and an 11 year old?
I certainly hope not.
glassjester
Well-known member
Why should it be legal to kill one, and not the other?
Read up on the constitutional challanges brought up by Roe.
glassjester
Well-known member
Surely you have a rational basis for your opinion, that you can easily explain. Do you not?
I refer you to TH's and my latest discussion.