Page 22 of 73 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 722

Thread: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

  1. #211
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    The only time that you would grant an organism the right to parasitize a human being with legal protection is in the case of the fetus. It is justifiable because an unwanted pregnancy is an infringement of the pregnant woman's rights that she should-- and does-- have every right to end at her discretion.
    Might you elucidate on this justification you assert, and where, exactly, it comes from? How it came to be that this lesser right of "choice" could somehow supersede another's right to life? I am curious as just what verbal gymnastics will ensue.

    Our Declaration of Independence speaks of such "Despotism" or this power of one, this tyranny of such a minority, and yes it is similar to slavery in that child in the womb, just like the slave, has no choice, that benevolent one... or malevolent one, the dictator has made this choice for them... and for everyone else involved. How is that right or fair? Co-creators do have rights.

    If not, that is most certainly a tyranny of the minority.

  2. #212
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Might you elucidate on this justification you assert, and where, exactly, it comes from? How it came to be that this lesser right of "choice" could somehow supersede another's right to life? I am curious as just what verbal gymnastics will ensue.
    The only gymnastics involved in this issue are the ones used by the abortion banners. The right of free people to make the important decisions in their life free from govt control is the foundation of liberty. Allow the govt to make your decisions (ie choices) for you, and that is tyranny. The govts role in such matters is mainly limited to preventing people from infringing on the rights of other persons.

    Since the unborn are not persons, the unborn have no rights to protect and the govt has no power to protect rights that do not exist.

    The bottom line is the twists, turns, and spins that the right has to go through in order to rationalize how their belief in a govt of power limited by the constitution can be squared with their desire to have the govt assume a power that was not granted to it by the constitution, and how their belief in liberty and freedom is consistent with the disdain they show for freedom when they trivialize people's right to self-determination (ie "choice") are the real "verbal gymnastics"

    Our Declaration of Independence speaks of such "Despotism" or this power of one, this tyranny of such a minority, and yes it is similar to slavery in that child in the womb, just like the slave, has no choice, that benevolent one... or malevolent one, the dictator has made this choice for them... and for everyone else involved. How is that right or fair? Co-creators do have rights.

    If not, that is most certainly a tyranny of the minority.
    And here is a fine example of the verbal gymnastics that you spoke of. You argue as if the fetus has rights and is being exploited in a manner similar to the way slaves are. The truth is, the mother's decision to abort has nothing to do with any form of exploitation of the fetus. The mother is also placed at risk when she consents to a medical procedure. Misrepresenting this situation in order to equate it with slavery is intellectually dishonest. It fails the "sniff test"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #213
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Might you elucidate on this justification you assert, and where, exactly, it comes from? How it came to be that this lesser right of "choice" could somehow supersede another's right to life? I am curious as just what verbal gymnastics will ensue.
    It isn't a lesser "right of choice". It is the right to self-defense, to defend against a human being that is by force and without consent depriving the biological mother of the use of her own body. I would also disagree that the fetus should have any such rights in the first place-- but even if it did, the woman's right to her bodily integrity and sovereignty is part and parcel of her right to life and her liberty. By conservative theories of natural rights, a person cannot have any "right" that requires that another person be forced to provide it, and that is exactly what the "right to life" for a fetus entails; a fetus survives entirely and exclusively by the labor and resources of the biological mother, and thus to grant it the right to life is to say that the biological mother must be forced into servitude to provide it.

  4. #214
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,461

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You
    're analogy is nonsense. Parents do not have the right to refuse medical care to a child who is not dying or who is not, in effect, brain dead and beyond recovery.

    Parents have a legal responsibility to provide care to their children at the risk of having them removed from the parents' care. If a child required a heart operation, if a parent denied that care the child would be taken from the parent and given the necessary care.
    Pulling the plug is still ending a human life and in the case of newborns and miscarriages, the parents have a choice of trying to save and revive preemies. Parents make resuscitate decisions all the time.

    Is that slavery?

    I am attacking the comparison your making.

  5. #215
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,461

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Well, I am nothing if not
    consistent. I'm actually glad I'm pretty predictable in this respect.

    Creating an inconsistent set of codes that can't stand together was always the point. And they're using this woman -- essentially saying it's ok if she gets no justice -- as a vehicle to help get them another mile down the road of forcing these codes into conflict.

    A lot of anti-choice people keep trying to tell me they consider the woman an equal or better to a ZEF, but things like this are the reason I don't believe them.
    Exactly my feelings too. I am sure all pro choice would agree

  6. #216
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,461

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Your argument fails when you realize
    except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.
    People used to argue that slavery was justified because the African people were inadequate warriors or because other Africans sold them to the west. They deserved to be captured and enslaved through actions of their own.

  7. #217
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,461

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    That is
    not true. A parent can refuse to give consent to any procedure, even if that means the child will die, if the procedure is "invasive" or "intrusive"
    Exactly. Happens all the time.when Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for their children.

  8. #218
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    Count the number of times the word "born" appears in the Constitution compared to the number of times "conceived"-- in reference to the conception of a child-- appears. While I disagree with this on a moral-- and ideological-- level, citizenship and human rights are attached to the human being only upon its birth.
    Fact of the matter is the number of times it occurs does not anywhere near approximate the proper specificity as to meaning nor significance that you are imputing to these occurences, that you seem to be asserting, which I will quote again because sangha said, and you are defending this line of thought, that "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." Our Constitution does not say that, you can extrapolate about that all day and night, you just might, being mighty fragile as the Constitution says nothing of the sort to that effect, and certainly does not confirm that at all …anywhere... Number of times mentioned does add, but not much, not in a way that gives any true credence, gives no specific bearing to how important or not creation or our conception may, or may not, be.

    However, just for fun, lets go down this little jog...

    Would you consider the Declaration of Independence a founding document in our common history of the United States?

    Even if you do not, I would, and I think most of us Americans would. Additionally, just coincidentally, fortuitously, I would assert the D.O.I. IS the document at the very CONCEPTION of these great states unified against a common foe and declaring itself not only alive, even though not yet recognized, not yet quite birthed shall we say, yet quickly growing, developing. Our brains, our heart, our muscle, sinew, souls and the spirit to survive developing as rapidly as we plausibly could… with the mother country attempting to snuff out our very existence. This Revolutionary War the labor which which we toiled to achieve that victory, for all intents and purposes the culmination of which was the recognized birth of our nation, totally set aside, bands broken, umbilical snipped, on our own.

    With that creating, the Declaration started the joining of all these different parts, beginning to work as one, not yet free from the mother country... but desiring our life, our independence.

    By maybe an even greater quirk of circumstance, or maybe not as those founding fathers thought of just about everything, but by happenstance here in this, the conceiving document, the D.O.I. mentions all men [ meaning of course all mankind] are, guess what… created, notice the “created” not that pesky word “born” being referenced here, undeniably importantly, that all men are created equal. We know Jefferson did not just bandy words, especially not with oversight in draft from the likes of Franklin and Adams, no slouches themselves in skills of word-crafting, Jefferson was very economical and efficient with his verbiage.



    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    The problem is that the power to "protect the unborn" violates the 13th Amendment, because the unborn only exist through the labor of their biological mothers.

    Well, I would have to say the 13th does not obviate the more primary right, the right to life of an innocent. While we can argue it for months no doubt, I will say this succinctly. Except in 1% of the cases that actually end up in pregnancy, these the cases of rape and incest, in all the rest of the 99% the females have knowingly and willingly agreed [ past tense] to engage in a potential of creating another human that has now, in actuality, in fact, occurred. Now the time for choice, except in that 1%, has come and gone. Now the right of life trumps, if it did not already, the lesser “right” of choice, which in any case already terminated.

    Sorry. Actually, not really sorry at all. Too many lost lives forever on that side of the divide for this side to ever be sorry for fighting to protect the most innocent, the most helpless and the totally voiceless.

    Its not slavery if one willingly volunteers, binds by contract sealed with performance, cannot back out once the contract is a done deal, separate DNA being proof positive of agreement in 99% of the cases, better than signatures and within nano-breadth as good as fingerprints between the two parties involved.

  9. #219
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Fact of the matter is the number of times it occurs does not anywhere near approximate the proper specificity as to meaning nor significance that you are imputing to these occurences, that you seem to be asserting, which I will quote again because sangha said, and you are defending this line of thought, that "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." Our Constitution does not say that, you can extrapolate about that all day and night, you just might, being mighty fragile as the Constitution says nothing of the sort to that effect, and certainly does not confirm that at all …anywhere... Number of times mentioned does add, but not much, not in a way that gives any true credence, gives no specific bearing to how important or not creation or our conception may, or may not, be.
    You are making a straw man argument here. No one has claimed that the constitution says that the word person, as used in the constitution, does not include the unborn. What was actually said, and what you have offered nothing to refute, is that under the constitution the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn

    However, just for fun, lets go down this little jog...

    Would you consider the Declaration of Independence a founding document in our common history of the United States?

    Even if you do not, I would, and I think most of us Americans would. Additionally, just coincidentally, fortuitously, I would assert the D.O.I. IS the document at the very CONCEPTION of these great states unified against a common foe and declaring itself not only alive, even though not yet recognized, not yet quite birthed shall we say, yet quickly growing, developing. Our brains, our heart, our muscle, sinew, souls and the spirit to survive developing as rapidly as we plausibly could… with the mother country attempting to snuff out our very existence. This Revolutionary War the labor which which we toiled to achieve that victory, for all intents and purposes the culmination of which was the recognized birth of our nation, totally set aside, bands broken, umbilical snipped, on our own.

    With that creating, the Declaration started the joining of all these different parts, beginning to work as one, not yet free from the mother country... but desiring our life, our independence.

    By maybe an even greater quirk of circumstance, or maybe not as those founding fathers thought of just about everything, but by happenstance here in this, the conceiving document, the D.O.I. mentions all men [ meaning of course all mankind] are, guess what… created, notice the “created” not that pesky word “born” being referenced here, undeniably importantly, that all men are created equal. We know Jefferson did not just bandy words, especially not with oversight in draft from the likes of Franklin and Adams, no slouches themselves in skills of word-crafting, Jefferson was very economical and efficient with his verbiage.
    The DOI is not a legal document and there's no evidence to suggest that they considered "creation" to be synonymous with "conception"


    Well, I would have to say the 13th does not obviate the more primary right, the right to life of an innocent. While we can argue it for months no doubt, I will say this succinctly. Except in 1% of the cases that actually end up in pregnancy, these the cases of rape and incest, in all the rest of the 99% the females have knowingly and willingly agreed [ past tense] to engage in a potential of creating another human that has now, in actuality, in fact, occurred. Now the time for choice, except in that 1%, has come and gone. Now the right of life trumps, if it did not already, the lesser “right” of choice, which in any case already terminated.

    Sorry. Actually, not really sorry at all. Too many lost lives forever on that side of the divide for this side to ever be sorry for fighting to protect the most innocent, the most helpless and the totally voiceless.

    Its not slavery if one willingly volunteers, binds by contract sealed with performance, cannot back out once the contract is a done deal, separate DNA being proof positive of agreement in 99% of the cases, better than signatures and within nano-breadth as good as fingerprints between the two parties involved.
    For one thing, the ZEF has no right to life. Also, it is a demonstration of verbal gymnastics you deplore to claim that when a woman has sex, she is consenting to birth a baby if she gets pregnant. In addition, at the moment of conception, the ZEF does not have "separate DNA"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #220
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Its not slavery if one willingly volunteers, binds by contract sealed with performance, cannot back out once the contract is a done deal, separate DNA being proof positive of agreement in 99% of the cases, better than signatures and within nano-breadth as good as fingerprints between the two parties involved.
    No. This argument is a fat stupid sack of fail. Contracts do not work that way. You cannot make contracts work that way. Contracts are by their very nature explicit and deliberate and mutual. You cannot accidentally enter into a contract and you cannot enter into a contract without knowing the terms. A contract involves very specifically agreeing, with full informed consent, that you are going to do a specific thing in exchange for specific remuneration. You are trying to argue that the woman is entering into a contract with a being before it exists, without its consent, which is not now and not ever expected to provide compensation, on the basis of performing an act with a third party that does not in every case or even the majority of cases result in that being existing. There is no possible way under any system of contract law as it is understood by any civilization, regardless of its laws concerning abortion, that having sex can be construed as agreeing to any kind of contract with the unborn child to provide gestation.

Page 22 of 73 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •