• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is her punishment?

So let’s review. A fetus is alive
Click to expand...
Sure.

its DNA proves that it is human
Click to expand...
Sure.

and its DNA also is entirely unique and different from the mother.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Therefore, science PROVES, yes PROVES, that a fetus is a living human being.
Click to expand...
And NOW you are lying.

None of the above proves anything about a "being." You seem to be rather illiterate in your unwarranted mixing and substitution of words that do not carry the same meaning. Is that per ignorance or deliberate deception?

As if that had to be proven in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well, so far you haven't. You have merely spewed your "just because I say so" claims as facts, thereby outright lying.

If a fetus was what Pro-ABORTIONISTS say it is,
Click to expand...
N0 such entities are around here, your lies none withstanding.

then it would be the first and only occasion in the history of science where an inanimate object (fetus) spontaneously became a living thing (newborn baby). Give me a break.
Click to expand...
But then, nobody have claimed it an inanimate object, your lies none withstanding.

So Steen, instead of derailing every promising adult debate here with these childish, psychotically angry personal attacks,
Click to expand...
My, oh my. You sure are whining a lot over having your lies exposed. Wouldn't it be easier to not lie to begin with?

why don’t you take your emotional antics to some teen chat room where you might actually be seen as an equal?
Click to expand...
Hmm, and now you are talking to yourself.
 
Jerry said:
steen picked a fight, and you took the bait.
I think that you are now in for a protracted argument.
Click to expand...
I didn't pick a fight. I expressed disagreement with the deceptive claims in aquapub's post.
 
Jerry wrote: "No "genuine crime" officially exists until the accused is proven guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in a court of law."


FALSE. Crime is initially defined by the law, not by the courts (although the courts can overrule that definition). Just the other day somebody got convicted of "making" child pornography by burning a CD of stuff downloaded from the Internet. The LAW declared that the action was a crime; the Court merely found the dude guilty of the action. WELL, IN THE CASE OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, the Constution (13th Amendment) is the Law that forbids it. On what grounds can it be said, therefore, that placing a woman into the involuntary servitude of an unwanted pregnancy, outside of due process of law, is NOT a crime? AND HOW CAN THE UNBORN HUMAN --IF GRANTED PERSON STATUS-- NOT BE GUILTY BEYOND **ANY** DOUBT? Do keep in mind that if the zygote is declared to be a person, then involuntary servitude begins when womb-implantation occurs -- AN ACT DONE BY THE ZYGOTE.




Jerry wrote: "Another thing that you are neglecting is your establishing Capitol Punishment for petty crime (theft). So, according to your world view, the next time a 5 year old steels a candybar (which has a greater monetary value than do organs and tissues), or has a debilitating condition requiring the financial/physical "resources" of his parents, said parents can just have him executed."

Well, there IS a difference that you can be sure the Courts can take into account here. The 5-year-old can LEARN different behavior; the fetus cannot (which of course is rationale for declaring the fetus NOT to be a person).




Jerry quoted: "A Law requiring execution {for placing another into involutary servitude} can be PUT onto the books BECAUSE of the way slavers traditionally do their thing."

--and wrote: You would have to prove that the fetus commited thouse crimes,"

You are being obtuse. The ONLY crime that needs proving is whether the unborn declared-to-be-a-person has placed another person into involuntary servitude. If the death penalty is on the books for THAT crime, then no proving of other crimes is needed.




Jerry quoted: "Nevertheless, EVEN JUVENILES CAN BE ARRESTED." AND
"And this {not arresting} will prevent "stopping the continuation of the crime" how?...."

--and wrote: "Arrested, yes. Executed, no. It wouldn't stop the "crime". The mother would just have to wait"

So NOW you would set a precedent that makes slavery unstoppable for 9 months? That women are just brood mares for rapists?



Jerry wrote: "With respect to your arguments, you simply need to make a choice: Is it Mindless Biology, or is it a criminal? The first choice establishes the Natural Law premise, the second choice establishes the fetus as a "person"."

I see your earlier Message #135 in which you describe "natural law", but to me it just looks like some sort of arbitrary legalese, JUST like your CLAIM that that block of legalese has anything at all to do with Mindless Biology.

For example:
+++
1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
+++
"traditional moral principles" are indeed, as you said, derived from arbitrary religious pronouncements. Many laws are indeed on the books because of those pronouncements. And they ALL pose a dilemma for a society that embraces Separation of Church and State. For this reason all of them should be thrown out, and replaced by a set of equivalent laws based on a different foundation, unassociated with any religion, such as "ethics". That would of course take time to do, and it will equally-of-course be totally opposed by religious wackos, who think that their arbitrary pronouncements are somehow superior to other arbitrary pronouncements.

Next:
+++
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
+++
THAT IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY. Due to the distinction between Choice and Causality, human-chosen activities are often declared to be UnNatural (environmentalists complain about human dams but not about beaver dams). Well, if we exist as a result of Creation, then the preceding logic means that that is NOT a Natural thing! Your (2) is thus thrown out for being irrational.

Next:
+++
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
+++
Could you define that better? REAL Natural Law, like the Law of Gravitation, is not something that needs to exist in human law books. And, the Law of Gravitation HAS NO OPPOSITE, although there are speculations that the IMPLEMENTATION of that Law may allow gravitational repulsion to exist, opposite from ordinary gravitational attraction.

Next, I see that tryreading in Message #136 offered an alternat explanation of Natural Law, and you didn't comment on it. Why? Certainly it seems to me that the points tryreading raised are NOT exactly the same points you seem to be relying on, in your claims that, essentially, Mindless Biology makes some things impossible to be declared crimes.





Jerry quoted: "I'm saying that we don't need to accuse the fetus of a crime, UNLESS the pro-life crowd makes particular pregnancies DECLARABLE to be crimes, by all women who do not want to be pregnant."

--and wrote: "Well, alright, then stop accusing a fetus of committing crime.
Should a fetus ever be given "personhood", at that point one could try and press charges. However, for numberus reasons which I have stated above, such a lawsuit would not result in abortion.......with the exception of murder, perhaps."

Heh, there are STILL possibilities. Suppose there was such a thing as a Safe Self-Abortion Kit. A woman who uses it, an a culture that claims unborn humans are persons, might claim self-defense from attempted murder...since it IS true, after all, that a certain percentage of pregnancies result in the deaths of the pregnant women. Early in a pregnancy, it is I think impossible to always tell whether or not life-threatening complications will occur later. That's one reason why checkups are done all through a pregnancy. A woman who FEARS the worst, and acts on it early in a pregnancy, is excersing a belief no more provable than the belief of someone who claims that the unborn human is a person!




Jerry quoted: "Just about all of Natural Mindless Biology can be lumped under a thing in Physics known as "Causality" (the Law of Cause and Effect)."

--and wrote: "I see what you are saying here, but pro lifers will say that the choice is made at the point of intercourse, and that after that it is too late to reverse that decision because now a human's Constitutionally protected life is involved."

Let's break that into two parts. The first part is you repeating something that I refuted at the start of Message #129, and you failed to reply. Care to reply NOW? The second part is that the Constitution protects PERSON'S lives (the word is explicitly used all through the Constitution), and not human lives (the word isn't used anywhere, not once). And so far there is no RATIONAL reason to claim that unborn humans qualify as persons. Especially because of the Census. See Message #2 in the "Question" Thread.



Jerry quoted: "all we have established is that Free Will chooses to trump Causality."

--and wrote: "As above. Biology + Law = Natural Law."

Since that CLAIM of yours doesn't make as much sense as you think, care to try again?

{continued next message}
 
{continued from Message #153}

Jerry quoted: "True, but NONE of those stages have Free Will."

--and wrote: "The current possession of Free Will is not an established requirement for the 14th. amendment to apply. Only the capacity for free will is an established requirement. That's why comatose people need an official medical Proxy, a comatose person, being absent of the current ability of free will, still has the the capacity of free will, and thus the constitution still applies to them."

Heh, now you are starting to sound like Felicity. The word "capacity" is debatable, you KNOW that one of its definitions is "potential" --AND I'm pretty sure there is no Law requiring that a potential MUST be fulfilled. You have the potential to fall down a staircase and break your neck.... Next, another synonym for capacity is "ability", WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM FUNCTIONALITY. A pianist in a barber shop is probably unable to function as a pianist, but the abilities associated with being a pianst remain unaffected. Well, the the person in a coma, unless SIGNIFICANT brain damage has occurred, RETAINS ALL ABILITY for such things as Free Will. ONLY THE FUNCTIONING of that ability is suppressed. Like your ability to ride a bicycle is suppressed inside a taxi, but still exists. Meanwhile, the unborn human as NEITHER ABILITY NOR FUNCTIONALITY of Free Will; it ONLY has "potential".


Jerry also wrote: "If you then argue that a fetus doesn't even have a brain, or whatever, you have established the Natural Law premis, at which point anti-aborts can shoot down abortion without effort."

You continue not to make sense when you write stuff like that.



Jerry wrote: "The constitution only applies to humans."

UTTERLY FALSE, as already described above. Not to mention certain fictional precedents, about which so far as I know, NO legal arguments to the contrary were EVER raised, in either fiction or the real world. Do you recall the premise of a movie (later a TV series) called "Alien Nation"?



Jerry quoted: "for humans, the mindpower to exhibit Free Will DOES exist -- but only AFTER birth, perhaps even significantly after birth (months)."

--and wrote: "Stop right there! You just established a fundi slippery-slope: "Abortion will lead to the killing born babies, simply because they are not wanted"."

Tsk, tsk, apples and oranges, three different ways. FIRST, establishing a Lack-of-Right-to-Life is NOT the same thing as an Automatic Death Penalty. SECOND, if abortion is allowed to weed out the unwanted, then it logically follows that born humans will be wanted (not under even threat of death). THIRD, an unwanted born human can be put up for adoption, something impossible to do for a fetus.


Jerry also wrote: "All your opposition needs to do is use your Mindless Biology argument and they will have proven their slippery-slope."

FALSE, as just described. All they will be trying to do is compare apples to oranges.




Jerry wrote: "The Constitution does not protect other animals."

TRUE, it only protects "persons". WITHOUT defining the word.

--and wrote: "Your opposition would need too say is "all MEN are created equal", and point out that dogs are not established as "Men"."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The Constitution DOES NOT SAY "all men are created equal". That statement is part of the Declaration of Independence ONLY, which is NOT the Law of the Land. Next, just to be nit-picky, the word "men" does not apply to human fetuses. Men are adults, after all, a situation that typically requries a developmental period known as "puberty". And we already have plenty of Laws that distinguish adults from less-developed humans. You yourself pointed out the juvenile justice system. IF REALLY ALL HUMANS WERE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH DISTINGUISHING. Right? And so unborn humans can be distinguished ALSO. Which they currently ARE, by not being granted any significant rights. Just like dogs or other animals.




Jerry quoted: "I WAS TALKING ABOUT CAUSALITY, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF SUBSERVIENCE TO IT."

--and wrote: "I have another 3 part responce:
1) I had too do that to a big dog before. It works just as you described it, though I didn't need to kill him 'cas he started to struggle too get away from me."

Whatever you are talking about, it is not very clear. Do note that all life-forms have as part of their existence a Mindless survival-persistence. They would quickly die without it, even bacteria. The implementation of that persistence can take many forms, such as struggling to escape a trap. (In Evolutionary terms, the ones that struggled and escaped lived to pass on the genetic predispostion to struggle when trapped, see?)


Jerry also wrote: "2) I've trained the "fight" and suppressed the "flight". I'm not trying to contradict you on this point, I only mien too point out that one does not need to rely only on Free Will to enact a result."

One of the things that Free Will can do is establish habit patterns. Habits are equivalent to "running on automatic", and once established, habits are actually a kind of Causality in action. (Calling habits "computer programs", where the brain is the computer, is accurate too.) The habitual smoker CHOSE the habit. (wrote the program) Many have also chosen to quit (reprogram), and succeeded. Free Will trumps Causality.


Jerry also wrote: "3) When you say "theft" to a judge, he will hear the legal definition, not a biological abstract. The way around this is too come up with a medicaly accurate term which describes this "biological equivalent of theft". Take care not too make the term sound too much like "theft" though."

AH, SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE. But such comparisons already exist. The fetus' survival modus is PERFECTLY equal to "parasitism". Theft, right? Yes, I remember you pointed out a "buffet" comparison, but this is just another aspect of Mindless Biology; mammals are adapted to accommodate the parasitism of their offspring. Nature allows ANYTHING that works. (Which again makes me wonder why you mention Natual Law, since so little is forbidden.) Did you ever read up on the life cycle of the cuckoo? http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/podos/Lahti_Biopage/lahtiPNAS05.pdf Note how hosts (any sort) are ALLOWED by Nature to kill parasites (any sort)! If they can, of course. Do you recall something I wrote in Message #130 about "fetal resorption"?



Jerry quoted: "Combined, the two points reveal human actions which are either hypocritical to the assumption, or indicating the erroneousness of the assumption."

--and wrote: "Ah, I understand you now. Both sides of the abortion issue have not agreed to the premise that pregnancy is nothing more than a mere medical condition."

Not relevant. "Medical" is not the same thing as "biological". I only mentioned "medical" because medicine is so thoroughly CONNECTED to biology. Pregnancy IS a Biological condition, regardless of "medical", AND a result of Causality. So, if humans declare superiority over Biology/Causality, to the extent that they claim freedom to interfere with Biology and oppose Causality, then freedom to interfere with pregnancy naturally/logically follows.


Jerry also wrote: "It is not enough to simply disagree with that view, you must shut it down...in their eyes."

Funny thing, I'm not remembering any pro-lifers here who have responded to that argument, about expecting women to carry pregnancies to term if humans claim superiority over Biology. :)



I'm not seeing any need to comment on the rest of what you wrote, at the end of Message #148. We are in fair agreement there (although, about the "dozen years", one reason I have been posting all this stuff is to give the pro-choicers arguments they might not have seen before --every little bit helps).
 
steen quoted aquapub: " Therefore, science PROVES, yes PROVES, that a fetus is a living human being."

--and then steen wrote: "And NOW you are lying.

None of the above proves anything about a "being." You seem to be rather illiterate in your unwarranted mixing and substitution of words that do not carry the same meaning. Is that per ignorance or deliberate deception?"


To aquapub, I'd like to back up SOME of what steen is saying. Look at the last part of Message #227 in the "Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate" Thread, which was directed to Felicity. Then see what Felicity wrote in #248 of the same Thread. However reluctant she was about it, she knows I made a valid point.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Look at the last part of Message #227 in the "Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate" Thread, which was directed to Felicity. Then see what Felicity wrote in #248 of the same Thread. However reluctant she was about it, she knows I made a valid point.
Click to expand...
Bullshit! How dare you assign any sort of personal thought or opinion to me!

The "being" thing is the stupidest pansyassed-hairsplitting nonsense I have ever heard...well I take that back--your denial of the word "capacity" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "Being" means it exists and is alive--EVERYONE but people who like the idea of dead fetuses knows it--They try to equate "being" with "person." Nope--not exactly equivalent--just like potential and capacity are not equivalent.

The reason I responded to this FI--is because this is not the first time you have put forth your rendition of what I think as a sit off screen letting Jerry smack you around. Letting you stew in your ignorance certainly does not mean I agree with your stupidity.


You may continue, Jerry.....;)
 
Felicity quoted: "However reluctant she was about it, she knows I made a valid point."

--and wrote: "Bullshit! How dare you assign any sort of personal thought or opinion to me!"

I DARE BECAUSE YOU DID NOT DISAGREE WHEN YOU WROTE THAT OTHER MESSAGE. There was nothing THEN to keep you from saying THEN AND THERE what you wrote in this Thread, in Message #156. Therefore I stand by the interpretation I made. YOU DO KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOU CAN IMPLY MORE THAN MERE EXISTENCE WHEN USING THE WORD "BEING". What objection do you have to accuracy in communications? If none, then the word "being" is NOT appropriate for an unborn human, because the word CAN imply things (significant mental abilities) that unborn humans do not possess. AND IF YOU DO OBJECT TO ACCURACY IN COMMUNICATIONS, NO WONDER I CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR NONSENSE. Well, I understand your obvious use (rather, MIS-use) of that nonsense to influence others who haven't had to parse languages precisely for twenty-odd years like myself, to prevent misinterpretations. And I disagree with such language mis-use, obviously.



Felicity also wrote: "your denial of the word "capacity" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

I don't deny the word at all. It definitely exists. I simply deny your mis-use of it, to imply things that are OBVIOUSLY AND MEASURABLY UNTRUE. When you show me a zygote that does algebra, THEN I'll consider that as SOME evidence that the zygote qualifies as a person. The capacity of a dump truck NEVER equals the stuff that the dump truck might actually carry, JUST like the capacity of a zygote does not equal a well-developed human doing algebra. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? (Answer: it demolishes your argument, of course.)
 
FutureIncoming said:
Felicity also wrote: "your denial of the word "capacity" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

I don't deny the word at all. It definitely exists. I simply deny your mis-use of it, to imply things that are OBVIOUSLY AND MEASURABLY UNTRUE. When you show me a zygote that does algebra, THEN I'll consider that as SOME evidence that the zygote qualifies as a person. The capacity of a dump truck NEVER equals the stuff that the dump truck might actually carry, JUST like the capacity of a zygote does not equal a well-developed human doing algebra. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? (Answer: it demolishes your argument, of course.)
Click to expand...
The issue is not the capacity of "zygote"--it's human capacity. A human zygote is....DUH! H.U.M.A.N.


There you go with the 'demolished" claim a.g.a.i.n.....what is it?...the sixth time you are coming at me with a new angle? Pitiful. Go try to extradite some fetuses so you can put 'em on trial....:doh
 
Felicity quoted: "JUST like the capacity of a zygote does not equal a well-developed human doing algebra."

--and wrote: "The issue is not the capacity of "zygote"--it's human capacity. A human zygote is....DUH! H.U.M.A.N."

SO WHAT? The actual characteristics that distinguish persons from animals are still only potential at the ZBEF stages of humans. Those humans **ONLY** have capacity, and **DON'T** have the actuality. Two different things. Just like the capacity of a dump truck and the actual stuff that is put into that capacity, are two different things.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Felicity quoted: "JUST like the capacity of a zygote does not equal a well-developed human doing algebra."

--and wrote: "The issue is not the capacity of "zygote"--it's human capacity. A human zygote is....DUH! H.U.M.A.N."

SO WHAT? The actual characteristics that distinguish persons from animals are still only potential at the ZBEF stages of humans. Those humans **ONLY** have capacity, and **DON'T** have the actuality. Two different things. Just like the capacity of a dump truck and the actual stuff that is put into that capacity, are two different things.
Click to expand...
It is a dump truck--it is demonstrably a dump truck. The dump truck can hold a certain amount of something--be it garbage or giant squid--(or some combo of specific things)--what it holds, does not change the fact that is has the CAPACITY to hold that amount of WHATEVER by means of the nature of the vehicle. If the truck holds some amount of garbage and no giant squid--it still has the CAPACITY to hold the giant squid--even if it is not, nor ever will, hold giant squid.

...A zygote is demonstrably a human "organism". The human organism is a general term for what it means to be a human. What it means to be a human is enumerated in the abilities of human organisms. The enumerated abilities are the capacity of the human organism. Human capacity includes the traits that demonstrate personhood. Ergo--a zygote has the capacity of personhood by its existence as a human organism.

It'll click in your brain someday...;)
 
Felicity wrote: "Human capacity includes the traits that demonstrate personhood."

FALSE, because you are equating capacity with the traits. Human capacity, LIKE ANY ORDINARY CAPACITY, is a thing that can be-filled-with or contain something else. The something else includes the traits that demonstrate personhood, among many other possibilities. The capacity is NOT ANY of the list of "something else". OTHERWISE UNBORN HUMANS COULD DEMONSTRATE TRAITS OF PERSONHOOD. Since they can't, it is obvious that your logic is as faulty as ever.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Felicity wrote: "Human capacity includes the traits that demonstrate personhood."

FALSE, because you are equating capacity with the traits.
Click to expand...
How do you get your sentence out of my sentence? When something "encompases" something else--it is not equating. Please explain, Mr. I've "parse[d] languages precisely for twenty-odd years."
 
Felicity wrote: "Human capacity includes the traits that demonstrate personhood."

FutureIncoming replied: "FALSE, because you are equating capacity with the traits."

Felicity responded: "How do you get your sentence out of my sentence? When something "encompases" something else--it is not equating."

Because YOUR USUAL CONCLUSION (zygote = person) REQUIRES the equating, AND because the word "include" CAN MEAN MORE THAN "encompass". Just like "being" can mean more than "exister". If you had instead written something like "Humans have the capacity FOR exhibiting the traits of personhood", well, THAT IS TRUE, and also obviously equates "capacity" with "potential" -- and you know that potentials are irrelevant! SO YOU CHOSE TO WRITE SOMETHING IMPRECISE AND INACCURATE, TO REACH A CONCLUSION THAT LESS OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T HOLD UP. Sugar molecules, for example, INCLUDE carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. THEY ARE PART OF SUGAR, not just "encompassed" by sugar. Also, sugar-molecule-CAPACITY **includes** those atoms in quite a variety of numbers (glucose, sucrose, fructose, maltose, lactose, etc). But that capacity is NOT the atoms, nor is it any particular relative-enumeration/combination of those three atoms. The CAPACITY for a random sugar to be "long chain" (analogy to person) does not automatically make it that, when in actuality it might be "short chain" (analogy to animal), despite the additional fact that there are reactions that can combine short-chain sugars to make long-chain sugars (analogy to growth). YOUR USE OF "includes" WAS INTERPRETABLE AS AN EFFORT TO MAKE PERSONHOOD PART OF CAPACITY ITSELF, INSTEAD OF PART OF THE THINGS **FOR**WHICH**CAPACITY**EXISTS**TO**POTENTIALLY**CONTAIN. (I can admit that "equate" was probably too strong a word for me to have used; "equate" involves "totality", instead of "part". Yes, I DO have to fix parsing errors in the computer programs I write. I've admitted to imperfect phrasing here before, and expect to do so, when appropriate in the Incoming Future. How about you?)
 
Must you scream so much? I can hear you FI....:cool:



....okay ....I've read what you said now....What the hell are you talking about????:confused: This suger nonsense is no-sense.....


BTW--"person" would be more like "sweet" in you sugar silliness (er...I mean analogy).
 
Last edited:
steen said:
I didn't pick a fight. I expressed disagreement with the deceptive claims in aquapub's post.
Click to expand...
Oh, well that's cool.
 
I've got to chop my answers down due to space......
The LAW declared that the action was a crime; the Court merely found the dude guilty of the action.
Click to expand...
Were thinking the same thing, we just need to connect.
The court says that the action is a crime, but there is not a perpetrator until the accusation is proven.

On what grounds can it be said, therefore, that placing a woman into the involuntary servitude of an unwanted pregnancy, outside of due process of law, is NOT a crime?............AND HOW CAN THE UNBORN HUMAN --IF GRANTED PERSON STATUS-- NOT BE GUILTY BEYOND **ANY** DOUBT?
Click to expand...

Well, first, the fetus didn't choose to exist. In-fact, one could say that the fetus had no choice in the matter in any way at all. The situation was/is totally beyond it's controle.

Second, if the fetus's conseption is found to be it's own fault, and not that of the mother and father, then the law would have to establish: A. Involuntary Servitude is punishable by death, and B. that a juvenile could receve the death penalty.

The 5-year-old can LEARN different behavior; the fetus cannot....
The fetus will instinctively "learn" not to use it's mother's bodily resourses when it is born.

The ONLY crime that needs proving is whether the unborn declared-to-be-a-person has placed another person into involuntary servitude. If the death penalty is on the books for THAT crime, then no proving of other crimes is needed.
Click to expand...

Sure. Now how do you recommend that a fetus prevent it's own conseption?

So NOW you would set a precedent that makes slavery unstoppable for 9 months?
Click to expand...

Jews in Egypt as well as Chinese, "Negro's" and my Scottish ansestors in America had to wait longer.......aside from the fact that this "slavery" must be proven first.....since the fetus doesn't have any chioce in the matter.

That women are just brood mares for rapists?
Click to expand...
Uh....you lost me.....rapists?......you mien the fetus?......

Well, if we exist as a result of Creation, then the preceding logic means that that is NOT a Natural thing! Your (2) is thus thrown out for being irrational.
Click to expand...

.....the function of a woman's gender is Unnatural?

Could you define that better?
Click to expand...

Natural Law is 'a body of laws derived from nature'.
Positive Law is whatever man wrights down on paper.

Next, I see that tryreading in Message #136 offered an alternat explanation of Natural Law, and you didn't comment on it. Why?
Click to expand...

There was nothing to comment on.

Suppose there was such a thing as a Safe Self-Abortion Kit. A woman who uses it, an a culture that claims unborn humans are persons, might claim self-defense from attempted murder......
Click to expand...

Such a kit would need to be used under the same rules for self defense as with a firearm.

A woman who FEARS the worst, and acts on it early in a pregnancy, is exercising a belief no more provable than the belief of someone who claims that the unborn human is a person!
Click to expand...

This "rational fear" can, is, and must always be provin.
You can prove that the assailant was where you say he was, doing what you say he was doing. Such is the entire purpose of forensic science.
Fingerprints on a weapon, foot prints on a carpet, colaberating independent witnesses, etc, etc, etc.

The term is "reasonable fear', one can not simply be fearful, or say that they are afraid. They must have 'a reasonable fear for their life' and their life must be in 'immediate danger'.

The first part is you repeating something that I refuted at the start of Message #129, and you failed to reply.
Click to expand...

You refuted nothing. Disagreed perhaps, but you disproved no point.

The second part is that the Constitution protects PERSON'S lives....and not human lives.
Click to expand...

person
n.
1) a human being.
2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

And so far there is no RATIONAL reason to claim that unborn humans qualify as persons.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you will have to convince pro lifers of that.

Since that CLAIM of yours doesn't make as much sense as you think, care to try again?
Click to expand...
See, there in lays the inherent obstacle of Natural Law: Everyone must prepossess a common understanding of the Natural Law premise in order to comprehend what is said on top of that premise.

I'll try again, but please be patient.
You are using the science of biology to describe nature. The laws of that biological order are natural laws. Your argument for pro choice Positive Law is based on your understanding of biological natural law/order.

Jerry wrote: "The constitution only applies to humans."

UTTERLY FALSE, as already described above. Not to mention certain fictional precedents, about which so far as I know, NO legal arguments to the contrary were EVER raised, in either fiction or the real world. Do you recall the premise of a movie (later a TV series) called "Alien Nation"?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, the constitution also protects cooperations like Hilberton and Exxon....but one can not abort a cooperation...so that is irrelevant.

I'm not interested in 'fictional precedents' or Alien-T.V. shows while in this thread, as they are irrelevant to actual law.

FIRST, establishing a Lack-of-Right-to-Life is NOT the same thing as an Automatic Death Penalty.
Click to expand...

Heh, "if you don't like newborns being exposed to die, don't do it".
"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
I never said "mandatory". It could be the mother's *choice*.

SECOND, if abortion is allowed to weed out the unwanted, then it logically follows that born humans will be wanted.
Click to expand...

So, there are no unwanted babies in America, then?

THIRD, an unwanted born human can be put up for adoption, something impossible to do for a fetus.
Click to expand...

Or just exposed to die.....er, I mien, terminate Mindless Biological functions.

You don't seem to like that slippery-slope, yet that is exactly what your argument could allow.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The Constitution DOES NOT SAY "all men are created equal".
Click to expand...
Go back and read the context of that statement. When you use a biological argument, you establish the Natural Law premise. It is completely appropriate to counter Natural Law (biology) with Natural Law (Declaration Of Independence).

Roe-v-Wade stuck to existing Positive Law, and you should too.

It is because of this that the Justis's in Roe-v- Wade deliberately sidestepped the Natural Law (Original Intent) argument, and the greater philosophical question of what constitutes "personhood".

"Medical" is not the same thing as "biological".
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry. "Biologicall" what I meant too say.
Read as: "Both sides of the abortion issue have not agreed to the premise that pregnancy is nothing more than a mere biological condition."

Our posts are getting a bit long......we should cut them down...I'm out of space.
 
Future-Incoming......are you around? Are you busy with real-world obligations? Where are you?

People are going to think that you have silently conceded if you do not post a rebuttal sometime soon.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Yes, I'm around, and yes, I've been pretty busy. And then the power supply in my computer died, and I STILL have various busy-nesses to attend. Back later.
Click to expand...
Heh, I know ALLLL about computer problems.....from the victim's standpoint, that is.
 
Jerry wrote: "The court says that the action is a crime, but there is not a perpetrator until the accusation is proven."

Okay. However, in the case of involuntary-servitude-pregnancy, the very existence of the pregnancy means that a perpetrator also exists. How can logic say otherwise? I see you did find something of a way out:

Jerry wrote: "the fetus didn't choose to exist. In-fact, one could say that the fetus had no choice in the matter in any way at all. The situation was/is totally beyond it's controle."

PARTLY Right; that's Natural Mindless Biology being the perpetrator and thus being the slaver. So what is the status of the assumed-to-be-a-person fetus in this situation? It cannot be a slaver, but it still can be the beneficiary of the slaver, and thus be a slave-owner! (Which I admit is a crime NOT practically always worthy of a death penalty.) On the other hand, I used that word "PARTLY" for a reason. See, womb-implantation is NOT beyond the control of the early embryo. It's initial cell-differentiations (from the all-stem-cells blastocyst) are specifically intended to provide the types of cells needed to latch onto a womb and grow into a placenta. Yes, there is no trace of Free Will in these events, it is ALL Mindless Natural Biology in Action. But it is ALSO AND ENTIRELY the action OF the organism that becomes the slave-owner...making that organism also the slaver, right?




Jerry wrote: "B. that a juvenile could receve the death penalty."

Yes, this is a serious obstacle, PROVIDED that the fetus is granted person status. ONE POSSIBILITY is to consider History, in which juveniles have been allowed to do all sorts of life-threatening things -- over in Iran I understand that when they were at war with Iraq in the 1980s, lots of young teenager (and possibly even pre-teenagers) were part of the army. It sort-of-figures that if they could jorin the army to shoot to kill, then also they can be killed. Yes, different cultures, different customs. Neverthless, once it is seen that the "juvenile barrier" IS breakable for killing juveniles, then what is the limit? Infanticide WAS fairly routinely practiced in ancient Rome, remember. Without even a crime being proclaimed (except perhaps "being deformed is a crime against Nature").




Jerry quoted: "If the death penalty is on the books for {slaving}, then no proving of other crimes is needed."

--and wrote: "Sure. Now how do you recommend that a fetus prevent it's own conseption?"

NOT the issue. Since womb-implantation is the thing that makes a slave of the woman, THAT is the thing the young embryo-declared-to-be-a-person should prevent, to avoid the crime of slaving. Often enough (30% of the time?) it indeed fails to implant in a womb. The rest of the time? That would be the end of the human species, of course. So in one sense it is OK that so many implantations occur. We DO have things like The Pill and IUDs to decrease the chance that a young embryo will implant in a womb. And women who WANT to be pregnant are of course offering themselves for VOLUNTARY servitude. The slavers then are ONLY those that implant when unwanted. A small portion of the total.




Jerry quoted: "So NOW you would set a precedent that makes slavery unstoppable for 9 months?"

--and wrote: "Jews in Egypt as well as Chinese, "Negro's" and my Scottish ansestors in America had to wait longer.

But those were cultures in which slavery was generally tolerated. NOT true today.

--and wrote: "...aside from the fact that this "slavery" must be proven first"

Explained above?

--and wrote: "...since the fetus doesn't have any chioce in the matter."

Also explained above.



Jerry quoted: " That women are just brood mares for rapists?"

--and wrote: "Uh....you lost me.....rapists?......you mien the fetus?......"

Don't be obtuse. If women are forced to carry pregnancies to term, then ANY unworthy male can pass on his worthless genes by commiting rape. Sometimes I think this is the REAL reason so many men oppose abortion. They know that the more that abortion is opposed, the better their chances of passing their worthless genes on. (In MY opinion, any man who thinks that way DEFINITELY has worthless genes. All through Nature, breeding is a PRIVILEGE and not a Right. And that particular privilege is earned by surviving, and by succeeding at wooing a mate, AND by supporting the offspring. Not by enslaving females to Mindless Natural Biology.)





FutureIncoming quoted: ""2) I've trained the "fight" and suppressed the "flight". I'm not trying to contradict you on this point, I only mien too point out that one does not need to rely only on Free Will to enact a result."

--and wrote: "THAT IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY. Due to the distinction between Choice and Causality, human-chosen activities are often declared to be UnNatural (environmentalists complain about human dams but not about beaver dams). Well, if we exist as a result of Creation, then the preceding logic means that that is NOT a Natural thing! Your (2) is thus thrown out for being irrational."

Jerry replied: "...the function of a woman's gender is Unnatural?"

**IF** humans are Creations, then we are the equivalent of Genetically Modified Foods, which many humans proclaim to be UNnatural. That "logic" would make ALL aspects of humans UNnatural, despite our (apparently) being only "modified" 2% or so from the rest of the perfectly Natural Great Apes. What I was originally arguing (and why I quoted so much) is a result of the fact that Persons HAVE power-of-Choice, a CRUCIAL thing that distinguishes Persons from mere animals, AND a major reason why human actions are often called UnNatural. BECAUSE human/persons can Choose, it is not so easy for human/persons to do macroscopic activities without Choice being involved somewhere along the way. Even the choice to accept Mindless Natural Biology (Causality) is a CHOICE --and exactly as "UNnatural" as any other Choice! Heh, heh, heh....




Jerry quoted: " Could you define that better?"

--and wrote: "Natural Law is 'a body of laws derived from nature'. Positive Law is whatever man wrights down on paper."

Then we have different definitions of Natural Law. Nature, after all, ALLOWS theft, murder, rape, etc., and generally prevents leaping over tall buildings at a single bound. Yet I'm pretty sure you have claimed that Natural Law forbids at least two of those things that I say Nature allows.




Jerry quoted: "A woman who FEARS the worst, and acts on it early in a pregnancy, is exercising a belief no more provable than the belief of someone who claims that the unborn human is a person!"

--and wrote: "This "rational fear" can, is, and must always be provin."

NOT a sensible statement. MANY fears are quite IRrational (acrophobia), a product of the subconscious and not of conscious thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if a pregnancy-phobia exists, although I wouldn't expect it to be common.


Jerry also wrote: "You can prove that the assailant was where you say he was, doing what you say he was doing. Such is the entire purpose of forensic science. Fingerprints on a weapon, foot prints on a carpet, colaberating independent witnesses, etc, etc, etc."

Duh, somewhat redundant, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

--and wrote: "The term is "reasonable fear', one can not simply be fearful, or say that they are afraid. They must have 'a reasonable fear for their life' and their life must be in 'immediate danger'."

That may be arguable. A kidnapper, for example, may threaten the life of the kidnapped, but not immediately. The kidnapper wants to find out first that no ransom will be paid. So, what if DURING that waiting time the kidnapped kills the kidnapper? Not to mention that THIS "self-defense" is being used against a slaver! The irrational fear of being enslaved for nearly two decades could be expected to drive some people to extremes. What if something like that happened to YOU? How willing to kill the slaver would YOU be?


{continued next message}
 
{continued from Message #171}




FutureIncoming quoted: "pro lifers will say that the choice is made at the point of intercourse, and"

--and wrote: "Let's break that into two parts. The first part is you repeating something that I refuted at the start of Message #129, and you failed to reply."

Jerry replied: "You refuted nothing. Disagreed perhaps, but you disproved no point."

One of the definitions of "refute" is "To deny the accuracy or truth of". Which is EXACTLY what I did in Message #129 (counting the very first paragraph, part of which is copied here).
+++
Keep in mind that about 1/7 of all couples are infertile, even before the modern era in which steriliztion is a common birth control method. A large fraction of that 1/7 wanted offspring. Natural Mindless Biology DID NOT COOPERATE.
+++
The choice to indulge is sex IS NOT AND CANNOT BE the same thing as the choice to accept a pregnancy, simply because pregnancy is not a guaranteed result of sex. So, to the extent that the evidence provided by 1/7 of couples is accurate, that is the extent to which that pro-lifer claim IS disproved as well as denied.




Jerry quoted: "the Constitution protects PERSON'S lives....and not human lives."

--and wrote: "person: n. 1) a human being."

Yes, that is a common dictionary definition. Nevertheless, the FACT is, the definition is incomplete. Remember two things: Dictionaries are supposed to show how a language is USED, and Dictionaries are supposed to be updated as language evolves. Well, NEITHER has been properly done with respect to the word "person". Modern use of "person" clearly includes decades of science fiction in which many many non-humans are treated as persons equal to humans. Why is that not in the dictionaries? Also, centuries BEFORE any dictionaries existed, humans TOOK VERY SERIOUSLY tales of such entities as angels and demons flitting about, AND ALSO tales of "little people", brownies, elves, etc. Nonhumans, even before Science Fiction existed, are clearly being granted person status by the very phrase "little people". Those serious beliefs had NOT died out when the first dictionaries were created; so why is that fact not in the dictionaries? THEREFORE, with precedent set two different ways, that nonhumans can be persons, the dictionaries NEED DIFFERENT PHRASING to generically distinguish persons from animals.

NOTE TO FELICITY: I don't recall your disagreeing with the logic above, presented on other occasions, that the average dictionary definition of "person" is incomplete, when the facts of both old and modern usage are pointed out. What say you? Your argument for all humans being persons doesn't involve that word's definition at all, as I know well. So you are a good pro-life choice to ask that question. Thanks in advance!



Jerry quoted: "And so far there is no RATIONAL reason to claim that unborn humans qualify as persons."

--and wrote: "Perhaps, but you will have to convince pro lifers of that."

Heh, I wonder if the reason (Conspiracy Theory Alert!) the dictionaries are incomplete is because pro-lifers have been in charge of what goes into the dictionaries. :) Felicity's reply to the above, should she deign, could be useful in determining if there is a starting point that could lead to such convincing.




Jerry wrote: "See, there in lays the inherent obstacle of Natural Law: Everyone must prepossess a common understanding of the Natural Law premise in order to comprehend what is said on top of that premise. I'll try again, but please be patient. You are using the science of biology to describe nature. The laws of that biological order are natural laws. Your argument for pro choice Positive Law is based on your understanding of biological natural law/order."

Well, on what grounds should Politics FAIL to acknowledge Nature? I understand that once upon a time some congresscritter wanted to pass a law making the mathematical constant "pi" exactly equal to 3. Do you think Nature would have cooperated? HAH! Politics is about Persons because only Persons can understand the concepts involved. Politics is about Choices, and only Persons can make true Choices. And Politics SHOULD be willing to recognize that it is Nature/Nurture, not Persons, that gives Persons the abilities to understand Politics and make Choices. That's why some humans are severly retarded, less capable than ordinary animals, even when grown to full-adult-body status. That's why the fossil record shows more than 50,000 years of Modern Humans exhibiting no trace of symbol-abstraction ability (the Nature existed but the Nurture didn't). In that era all humans were "feral" (as if raised by animals) and COULD NOT fully qualify for personhood.



Jerry wrote: "I'm not interested in 'fictional precedents'"

Heh. EVERY Law is written with an eye to the future. Well, it's a big Universe out there, and the Future is Incoming. What will it bring? ARE WE PREPARED? Should we AVOID being prepared? Is it not obvious that by dealing with the concept of "Person" thoroughly, we can BECOME prepared? These days SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) is serious work.




Jerry quoted: "if abortion is allowed to weed out the unwanted, then it logically follows that born humans will be wanted."

--and wrote: "So, there are no unwanted babies in America, then?"

NO, because the "if" that you quoted is not fully true. MANY unwanted pregnancies are still being carried to term. And we know who can be blames for that, right?




Jerry quoted: "an unwanted born human can be put up for adoption, something impossible to do for a fetus."

--and wrote: "Or just exposed to die.....er, I mien, terminate Mindless Biological functions. You don't seem to like that slippery-slope, yet that is exactly what your argument could allow."

Oh, I fully recognize the LOGIC of the consequences of the Scientific Facts. I ALSO recognize that the Constitution, in SPITE of facts, grants rights to "persons born" (Amendment 14). So, we HAVE a Law that is not being argued about (regarding newborns). And we have an argument about extending that Law to the unborn (the entire abortion debate). I am pointing out that those who want to extend that Law are trying to INCREASE the ignoring of Scientific Facts. But that is nothing new for that religiously indoctrinated crowd, right? Maybe they can ultimately be ignored on grounds of Separation of Religion and State.




Jerry wrote: "When you use a biological argument, you establish the Natural Law premise. It is completely appropriate to counter Natural Law (biology) with Natural Law (Declaration Of Independence)."

That only makes sense if both are actually talking about real Natural Laws. But the Declaration of Independence is a POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS statement, having nothing to do with Nature.



Jerry wrote: "Roe-v-Wade stuck to existing Positive Law, and you should too."

Perhaps. I think the more arguments, the merrier. ONE of them DID thoroughly stick to existing Positive Law; I mentioned Message #2 in the "Question" Thread here in this Forum. Did you see it?


Jerry wrote: "Both sides of the abortion issue have not agreed to the premise that pregnancy is nothing more than a mere biological condition."

If the pro-lifers make such a claim, ALL THEY NEED DO IS PROVIDE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. So far, they have not done anything of the sort.
 
FYI: Doc. says I have early symptoms of carpultunnle, so in addition to my nifty new fancy keyboard, I'll only be posting on weekends.
Late-
 
FI,
You're going to need to drastically cut your post's length. I no longer have enough time to respond to 'play-by-play' dissections.

Re. your last post, you are confusing Mindless Biology with a criminal again, and I'm not going to participate in circler conversations.

If it's Mindless Biology, then there is no slavery, theft, etc, because thouse things can only be committed by "person"s. If there is theft, slavery, etc, then the fetus is a "person" and is protected by Roe-v-Wade section 9a. "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment"......and that was weighing the fetus's right to life -vs- the mother's physical health.....so even Roe-v-Wade is against your theft/slavery argument.

You must sterilize yourself from any possable inference of a fetus being a "person". You must abandon your theft/slavery argument. To do otherwise is to give pro life the victory.
 
Jerry wrote: "Re. your last post, you are confusing Mindless Biology with a criminal again, and I'm not going to participate in circler conversations. If it's Mindless Biology, then there is no slavery, theft, etc, because thouse things can only be committed by "person"s."

There IS a rationale for disagreement. Consider the crime of destruction-of-property. You are only allowed to destroy your own property, not that of others. Well, if Nature sends a tornado that destroys your property, THE ESSENCE OF THE CRIME HAS STILL BEEN COMMITTED, even if there is no "person"-type perpetrator.

Perhaps, though, that entire section of the debate can be dropped in favor of this notion: It may be possible to argue that if abortion is banned, then those who passed the anti-abortion legislation can be accused/convicted of slaving...I DO understand that the creation of legislation counts as a KIND of "due process of law" and so this sort of enslavement might be acceptable under the 13th Amendment, but it opens the door to OTHER abuses, that any majority can vote on legislation that enslaves any minority. Thus I think if this was pointed out, that "kind" of "due process of law" would NOT be the sort refererred-to in the 13th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom