Persons, personhood and their relevance. - Page 2

Lachean · 07-08-08, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

There are lots of organisms I wouldn't kill out of respect for their life. I need no paperwork to have such respect. Wanton killing has just never been my thing. Frankly I find the notion that a mom should be able to off her offspring due to the offspring's lack of state issued papers is callous and obscene.

Oh I hear you on that, I just take issue with any made up rights.

If you feel that the unborn deserve rights, and would like the standard changed from birth to say... implantation, then you must also be willing to deal with the logical conclusions of shifting the goalpost.

Something can be wrong without our having a right against it, we need not make up rights.

talloulou · 07-08-08, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

Oh I hear you on that, I just take issue with any made up rights.

If you feel that the unborn deserve rights, and would like the standard changed from birth to say... implantation, then you must also be willing to deal with the logical conclusions of shifting the goalpost.

Something can be wrong without our having a right against it, we need not make up rights.

I can agree with that. But the other side did it first.

When you start claiming privacy equates to a constitutional right to an abortion then I figure I can just start pulling rights out of my arse too.

prometeus · 07-08-08, 06:29 PM

Does the wrong reason invalidate the right outcome? Privacy may have been the "buzz word" by I do not think it was the sole motivator. Lets not forget that abortion WAS legal before R v. W and given time it would have been made legal in a lot more states, in effect negating the restrictions in the states where religion illegally dominates politics.

talloulou · 07-08-08, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

Does the wrong reason invalidate the right outcome? Privacy may have been the "buzz word" by I do not think it was the sole motivator. Lets not forget that abortion WAS legal before R v. W and given time it would have been made legal in a lot more states, in effect negating the restrictions in the states where religion illegally dominates politics.

In which states is religion illegally dominating politics?

prometeus · 07-08-08, 07:13 PM

South Dakota comes first to mind.

talloulou · 07-08-08, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

South Dakota comes first to mind.

So which religion is dominating South Dakota politically?

Lachean · 07-09-08, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

I can agree with that. But the other side did it first. :mrgreen: When you start claiming privacy equates to a constitutional right to an abortion then I figure I can just start pulling rights out of my arse too.

When have I ever made such a claim? Contrary to what you may think I am opposed to Roe v Wade and morally opposed to abortion. I believe the constitution says nothing on the matter, so its up to states to decide whether they want to allow it.

Ethereal · 07-09-08, 12:37 AM

Quote:

There is a right not to be killed? On what constitution?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
-5th Amendment, United States Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-9th Amendement, United States Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-Section 1, 14th Amendment, United States Constitution.

Bodhisattva · 07-09-08, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

There is a right not to be killed? On what constitution?

I think being born is a legitimate standard for being a citizen (and thus, the rights entitled to a citizen), else we would have to offer birth certificates to every fertilized egg, including those who never made it to implantation, the aborted and the miscarried.

What if the US Constitution had never been written, eh prometeus and Ethereal?

The issue is morality, not legality.

It is just fine to abort a fetus/baby in Mexico but not in the USA simply because of a piece of paper talking about citizenship?

Ethereal · 07-09-08, 04:23 AM

Quote:

What if the US Constitution had never been written, eh prometeus and Ethereal?

I believe prometeus is on your side, so I'm sure he would agree with you.

Quote:

The issue is morality, not legality.

It is just fine to abort a fetus/baby in Mexico but not in the USA simply because of a piece of paper talking about citizenship?

It is important to note that the idea of rights is a moral concept first and a legal concept second. Only after the Founding Fathers established the moral legitimacy of rights did they find it prudent to afford them legal protection. So, in answer to your question, no, it would not be alright to abort a baby in Mexico simply because they are not afforded the same legal protection as Americans.