• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peter Kreeft

cfreeman said:
I hate the term "anti-choice". It's unnecessarily inflammatory.

Should I call you "anti-life"? I won't.
Click to expand...

I've heard a lot of "pro-death" getting tossed around. I don't like it, either, but I'm not going to whine about. Pro-lifers often toss out a lot more inflammatory rhetoric than that.
 
cfreeman said:
I don't think the denial of persons in the constitution is quite so explicit as you say. Sure, it says something to the effect that all born persons are equal. But could that not be due to their lack of scientific understanding? They had almost no concept of embryology.
...
Click to expand...

The SC decided that an unborn was not a person.


A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade - edited text
 
cfreeman said:
What am I supposed to be committing to? And maybe I don't know every answer to every question you ask me. Doesn't mean my personal position or conviction is weak. I'm extremely committed to pro-life values. Seems kinda early to be commenting on my character or intelligence doesn't it?

That's a good definition, very thorough. I was intrigued by the last paragraph.



Emphasis my own. By no means do I think this means they're saying the pre-born have any specific rights. But they are careful not to deny any that might exist by excluding them from the definition of person.
Click to expand...

You are misreading the quoted part " Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm , deny, expend, or contract..."



Here is the full US code:
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Click to expand...

And just to be clear ...

Part C of US Code >title 1 refers to a born alive infant.

The requirements of this Section shall not be construed to prevent an infant’s parent(s) or guardian(s) from refusing to give consent to medical treatment or surgical care which is not medically necessary or reasonable, including care or treatment which either:

(1) Is not necessary to save the life of the infant;
(2) Has a potential risk to the infant’s life or health that outweighs the potential benefit to the infant of the treatment or care; or
(3) Is treatment that will do no more than temporarily prolong the act of dying when death is imminent.
 
cfreeman said:
What about laws where if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer can be charged with double homicide? Are these not protections of fetal life?
Click to expand...

No, they are not about fetal rights, but rather they are about state's rights.
States can and have protected non person's
 
Lursa said:
I only care about women having the right to choose and that seems to have required a SCOTUS decision illustrating how and why they do in their interpretation of the Constitution. Do you think that women's rights can be preserved without force of law? Without following the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Not quite sure I understand these questions. Are you asking is the Constitution neccesary to protect the rights of individuals in our country? Yes, it is neccesary if that's what you mean.

Women's rights not being violated is the underlying principle for me...the entirety of their lives is more important to me than the potential lives that may or may not await the unborn. What underlying principle do you base your opinion on?
Click to expand...

The underlying principles guiding my belief are a strong belief in the value of all human life and of the equality of all human life. My religious beliefs also help to inform my prolife philosophy, although I don't use religion to discuss abortion because most of the people I'm talking with don't share this conviction.

Equality in terms of people (rather than mathematically or physical equivalencies) is subjective. I can see many ways that the unborn are not equal to the born, it's very evident to me. But to create law to protect anyone's rights, this status must be defined and I agree with that set out in the Constitution, which no where describes rights for the unborn. Do you believe the unborn are equal to the born? If so, why?
Click to expand...

What do you mean that equality in terms of people is subjective? I'm confused there.

I agree that there are many ways that the unborn, at face value, are less "equal" than the born. But I think their equality goes deeper than things like their ability to think, reason or love. Their equality, or dignity, is based on their humanity, which they have in full degree as members of the human species.

That is why I believe the unborn are "equal" to the born.

As a side note, I think "equal" is a tricky word and that "equality" is a murky subject in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom