Lachean

Pro-abortion is a moral stance regarding abortion. I am not pro-abortion, I am morally opposed to it and would not ever get one. However I am also a libertarian, and care about the constitutionality of using force to stop other people from getting it.

An abortion of a blastocyst is indeed halting the process of human "human life," just like killing a human being, and using a condom. But these three acts must no be equivocated, because each matters of different areas, one being biological, moral, and legal.

Are you asking me which week in the development of a child? Go ask Wikipedia, not me. I do not know the precise day, I imagine it would be a range.

__________________
"The original, and still the best!" - Grifter

Reverend_Hellh0und

Actually I agree with you and hold the same stance. I also like to point out that no public money should be spent helping anyone get one.


Here I disagree, are you suggesting that we are killing millions of our progeny by using a condom is the same as a 2nd trimester abortion?


Where as a libertarian do you find yourself wondering about the liberties and rights of the child in the womb?

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Lachean

No, I quite clearly said that those three acts "must not be equivocated." They are distinctly different acts regarding biology, ethics and legality; And we should not confuse them when discussion the biology of development, the rights as a citizen a ZEF has during this process, and the morality of ending said process.

Let us be objective and not obfuscate the issue by equating apples to oranges. At all stages we are dealing with human life, but only at birth will one have the rights of a citizen.

Rights are given to citizens by their constitution, and under ours you're a citizen at birth, not conception; Else we would consider you 9 months old at birth.

Korimyr the Rat

Certainly. I wasn't making an argument, as I had already stated my position on the matter. I was merely posting something for Galen (and others) to think about, if they're going to be arguing on the basis of souls.

In my faith, it is the name that establishes the soul. Though I argue this position on the basis of societal function, and try to leave the matter of souls out of it, my religious beliefs had a prominent role in establishing my position.

All determinations of the "worth" of human beings are subjective-- whether they're based on developmental markers or on biological human-ness. The issue of "might makes right" only enters into it when we're deciding whose opinion the law will enforce.

__________________

Reverend_Hellh0und

So then you disagree with laws adding an additional penalty if someone kicks a woman in the gut killing her baby? After all according you you rights are "given to us" by the constitution at "birth".




Rights are inalienable, not "given" to us by the constitution. As a Libertarian you really ought to no this.

Lachean

If you kick a woman in her gut, you've committed assault and battery. You've already violated her rights, and damaged her property. You've forced an abortion on her, which is against all state laws; for which some states would consider that act "involuntary manslaughter."

You have that backwards, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable, however: we decide what our liberties are in our constitution. Our government is founded by and based on our constitution, not the declaration of independance; You should know this.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Well then isn't that a "right" to not be "involuntary manslaughtered"?



Actually I refer you to the tenth amendment for some research, also if you look closley the origional 10 amendments and most of them save for the idiotic prohibition one clearly restricts the government and not the people. these are rights "recognized" and the 10th confirms this.


Also I fail to see why you are bringing the declaration of ind. into this.

Lachean

Calling a legal protection a right would be a misnomer. Rights are constitutional issues, not states issues (which is what the 10th amendment is there to clarify.)

The 10th amendment is what makes the distinction between constitutional and states right issues. What does the 10th have to do with your claim that our rights are "inalienable?"

You claimed that "Rights are inalienable, not "given" to us by the constitution." On the latter statement you are wrong, because our rights are what our government (based on the constitution) are sworn to defend. The former statement that they are "inalienable" is also false, 1. because such a word is not mentioned in the constitution, only the declaration and 2. Our rights can and have been taken away from us, and voted away by us.

If you haven't noticed, it has become commonplace for people to argue that we no longer need some of our rights (guns, privacy, etc...) and believe we can vote them away. Conversely, you hear people making up rights that do not exist in our constitution.

I disagree with your claim that they are "inalienable" in reality, but ideally I completely agree. I do not believe that people should have the right to vote away their rights, such actions are unconstitutional.

Reverend_Hellh0und

We are getting way off topic, suffice to say that recognition of said rights does not make the constitution a grantor of said rights,. the 2nd recognizes our inalienable right to keep and bear arms for example.


Anyway you did not respond to the involuntary manslaughter question which was more appropriate for this particular discussion..

Edit I see that you sort of have now. you are splitting hairs, one of the rights even you posted was that to life. you by chargin someone for "involuntary manslaughter" are in fact enforcing that right to the fetus.


Regarding the 10th:

See ", or to the people.""


"“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.’’ – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.

The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.

Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.

It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization"

About the Tenth Amendment » Tenth Amendment Center

Lachean

I edited my last post, so you may have missed when I said:

"I disagree with your claim that they are "inalienable" in reality, but ideally I completely agree. I do not believe that people should have the right to vote away their rights, such actions are unconstitutional."

I believe we have said rights whether or not we have a government (based on said constitution) to defend or recognize them. I believe the cause of liberty is the inevitable counter-movement to any age of tyranny or oppression; and the constant vigilance required to remain in a state of freedom is the responsibility of any patriot.

In short, I believe a patriot is a man who defends his constitution from all enemies, even if said enemies are your countrymen.

I believe I did when I said, "Calling a legal protection a right would be a misnomer. Rights are constitutional issues, not states issues (which is what the 10th amendment is there to clarify.)"

Just because a state determines such a penalty for a crime, or makes up a legal protection; Should not mean we should regard such a protection as a "right." Legally speaking, the word should be reserved for constitutional liberties.

Just because something is illegal, does not mean that there is a right in play for whatever is being protected.

Not quite, simply because the mother has suffered an assault and battery, and forced miscarraige (having her rights violated) does not mean that the child itself has had its rights violated, because it is not yet a citizen to have said rights. Its currently the property of the mother.

Just because a state may regard it as a right, does not make it so. Like I said, there is a large portion of our electorate "making up rights." A woman does not have the right to chose, nor does the baby have a right to life. Both of these issues are not in the constitution, thus by the 10th amendment, it is up to the state's to make a decision on whether or not such a medical procedure should be prevented with government force.

The way that I understand our constitutional rights, they are what the government cannot do to us, and what the government will enforce among the citizenry. Meaning: Just because something isn't "illegal" does not mean you have a right to do it, it simply means you are free to without fear of government force to stop you.

You may regard this as splitting hairs, however I maintain that words have specific meanings, and to regard any protection for fetuses as a "right" would be a misnomer, and would be the result of a recent deliberate trend to blur such lines in order to "make up" rights.

I agree with this enterpretation entirely. Do you agree that matters of abortion are not up to the Federal government, thus is a matter for states to decide?

I believe you and I are in agreement with opposition to Roe v Wade, so what are you driving at exactly? That the fetus has rights?