• 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!

What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?

The United States Constitution protects


  • Total voters
    20
Chuz you're top notch at explaining your beliefs, but you are Average/Sub-Par when it comes to debating effectively...Perhaps a more open mind, at least to offer a quality counter to an opponents point of view, would see you having a much more wonderful time here. :D
 
I'd say that there is no "right" to life, only a chance. Because if there was a right to life then someone may want to have a little chat with Mother Nature...bitch kills babies ALL the damn time. However, that doesn't give grown human beings prudence in deciding when it's time to recognize the "rights" of the fetus or not. As usual it's a little black, a little white, lots of gray issue and it's largely up to individuals rather than the majority to decide this.


There is no right to life?

Okay, Dude... I don't know that I'll add you to the ignore as well. But, I don't see as how we can bridge a gap that wide.

Have a nice life and and here's to the hope that you never run afoul with someone who shares your mindset and has the gall to act on it!

:cheers: :2wave:
 
There is no right to life?

Okay, Dude... I don't know that I'll add you to the ignore as well. But, I don't see as how we can bridge a gap that wide.

Have a nice life and and here's to the hope that you never run afoul with someone who shares your mindset and has the gall to act on it!

:cheers: :2wave:

Well, when you're ready to put your emotions on the back burner and discuss what's really the case, you give me a call, Chuzy. I'll be waiting right here.


btw fax this to Mother Nature when you get a chance, she clearly doesn't know that there's a Right to life either...

Right n.
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b1: the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> b2: plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
3: something that one may properly claim as due
4: the cause of truth or justice
 
Last edited:
Well, when you're ready to put your emotions on the back burner and discuss what's really the case, you give me a call, Chuzy. I'll be waiting right here.

:rofl

Dude,.. seriously.

I couldn't be more calm and settled.

I'm twice your age,.. and I've been at this for almost as long as you've been on the planet.

If I thought I needed schooling on anything, (no offense) I know how to find the information myself. Someone famous (Einstein?) once said; "it's not what you know,... it's knowing where to find it."

I don't sweat the small stuff.
 
:rofl

Dude,.. seriously.

I couldn't be more calm and settled.

I'm twice your age,.. and I've been at this for almost as long as you've been on the planet.

If I thought I needed schooling on anything, (no offense) I know how to find the information myself. Someone famous (Einstein?) once said; "it's not what you know,... it's knowing where to find it."

I don't sweat the small stuff.
You're still completely wrong because you don't base your argument on science - you base it on the metaphysical and on your own emotions.
 
:rofl

Dude,.. seriously.

serious.jpg


I couldn't be more calm and settled.

I've never seen someone so "calm" and "settled" put people on their ignore list as fast as you have.

I'm twice your age,.. and I've been at this for almost as long as you've been on the planet.

Time spent on the planet does not mean it was time spent well or time spent learning lessons.

If I thought I needed schooling on anything, (no offense) I know how to find the information myself. Someone famous (Einstein?) once said; "it's not what you know,... it's knowing where to find it."

And here you are, not open to new information being given to you, some given rather civilly and with respect.

I don't sweat the small stuff.

What small stuff aren't you sweating here?
 
I've never seen someone so "calm" and "settled" put people on their ignore list as fast as you have.

"You got to Know when to foldem."

I can tell in a very short amount of time who is and who is not worth my time. And if I'm wrong about them? I can always apologize and take them back off ignore.

Time spent on the planet does not mean it was time spent well or time spent learning lessons.

I never said it was.

What small stuff aren't you sweating here?

Posts from those who are on my ignore lists, for one.
 
Ian,.. do tell me what you require in the way of proof that a zygote is an organism,... and that there is a consensus in the scientific community as to the fact that conception begins a new organisms life...

Maybe then I can address your concerns in a more direct manner.
I 'require' what would/should be standard in any debate - what you started to do in our formal debate on 4forums (here, for those that care). I'd have to agree with EpicDude, it's somewhere where you are lacking, especially when it comes to dealing with criticism of your views. Here's the list I try to follow (to varying degrees of success...):

1. Make claim/assertion
2. Back claim up with evidence and/or reasoning, in the same post as you make the claim (or when challenged to, if you forget/don't bother).
3. If it could be unclear as to how evidence supports claim/assertion, explain your reasoning to go with it.
4. If evidence is challenged, either provide more evidence or dispute the challenge, on whatever grounds you see fit.

In the quote above, you've made two claims. However, that's almost as far down the list as you've ever got - in this thread/forum, at least. You haven't posted much evidence that directly supports your claims (certainly none on the 'scientific consensus'), you haven't explained how your evidence shows your claims to be correct (like that previous quote from answers.com, beyond the explanation Dude provided) and you haven't responded to any criticism of your position beyond an ever-growing 'ignore' list and various insults about 'flat-earthers' etc.

In short: you need to provide more evidence, you need to explain it where needed and you need to respond to criticism/opposing evidence with reasoning of your own rather than outright denial. Apart from that, you're making for interesting reading!
 
I 'require' what would/should be standard in any debate - what you started to do in our formal debate on 4forums (here, for those that care). I'd have to agree with EpicDude, it's somewhere where you are lacking, especially when it comes to dealing with criticism of your views. Here's the list I try to follow (to varying degrees of success...):

1. Make claim/assertion
2. Back claim up with evidence and/or reasoning, in the same post as you make the claim (or when challenged to, if you forget/don't bother).
3. If it could be unclear as to how evidence supports claim/assertion, explain your reasoning to go with it.
4. If evidence is challenged, either provide more evidence or dispute the challenge, on whatever grounds you see fit.

In the quote above, you've made two claims. However, that's almost as far down the list as you've ever got - in this thread/forum, at least. You haven't posted much evidence that directly supports your claims (certainly none on the 'scientific consensus'), you haven't explained how your evidence shows your claims to be correct (like that previous quote from answers.com, beyond the explanation Dude provided) and you haven't responded to any criticism of your position beyond an ever-growing 'ignore' list and various insults about 'flat-earthers' etc.

In short: you need to provide more evidence, you need to explain it where needed and you need to respond to criticism/opposing evidence with reasoning of your own rather than outright denial. Apart from that, you're making for interesting reading!

It's clear that your idea of my needs and my idea of my needs are two different things. (shall I list YOUR needs?)

I asked what it is that you require in the way of proof of my claims and of a consensus.

You are still too vague in your response for me to know exactly what you want. Definitions? Images? Links to more references? What?

I didn't ask (and don't care to know) what it is that you require in my making a better presentation or debate.
 
It's clear that your idea of my needs and my idea of my needs are two different things. (shall I list YOUR needs?)

I asked what it is that you require in the way of proof of my claims and of a consensus.

You are still too vague in your response for me to know exactly what you want. Definitions? Images? Links to more references? What?

I didn't ask (and don't care to know) what it is that you require in my making a better presentation or debate.

You asked what he required to in the way of proof of your claims and he provided a very reasoned and thought out response that detailed to you precisely what is needed.
 
You asked what he required to in the way of proof of your claims and he provided a very reasoned and thought out response that detailed to you precisely what is needed.

"Proof" can be a lot of things.... But one thing it is not is in the way I construct my arguments or respond to criticisms.

That's not asking for "proof" or evidence.... that's asking to be "compelled."

Even I know better than to be suckered into that trap.

That said,... "Shopping Happens"

--Santa-Chuz
 
Last edited:
It's clear that your idea of my needs and my idea of my needs are two different things. (shall I list YOUR needs?)

I asked what it is that you require in the way of proof of my claims and of a consensus.

You are still too vague in your response for me to know exactly what you want. Definitions? Images? Links to more references? What?

I didn't ask (and don't care to know) what it is that you require in my making a better presentation or debate.
List 'my' needs, by all means. I would be interested in what you have to say. In fact - throw in what you'd like me to provide to prove my claims, seeing as I've done the same for you, albeit with less detail than you'd like. It might provide a bit more of an example for me and allow me to be more specific.

You ask for more specifics... but I've already laid out what I would/do ask of you; I will try to be more so this time. So far, you haven't produced any evidence on the 'scientific consensus' and all you have provided on 'a zygote is an organism' is three links, in another thread on a different forum, which I have already responded to with three links of my own which directly oppose yours. What I am asking of you is to provide something more. The format of that 'something more' does not matter - what matters is the strength of that evidence. Provide some evidence which is either indisputable or so strong that it knocks way anything else I could post against it - because so far, I (or someone else) has knocked down whatever you have put up.

EDIT: You (and rivrrat) posted, giving me a bit more insight. It's definitely how you respond to criticism which means you haven't supported your claims - because if every bit of evidence you post is dismissed (for valid reasons) then you still have not supported your claim.
 
Last edited:
"Proof" can be a lot of things.... But one thing it is not is in the way I construct my arguments or respond to criticisms.

That's not asking for "proof" or evidence.... that's asking to be "compelled."

Even I know better than to be suckered into that trap.

That said,... "Shopping Happens"

--Santa-Chuz
Ah. So you didn't read the post at all. Gotcha. *nod*
 
Chuz said:
"Proof" can be a lot of things.... But one thing it is not is in the way I construct my arguments or respond to criticisms.

That's not asking for "proof" or evidence.... that's asking to be "compelled."

Even I know better than to be suckered into that trap.
But Chuz - proof is compelling.

"Proof
NOUN:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
"

You have given some evidences and arguments that support your claims. I (and others) have debunked your evidence/arguments with evidence/arguments of our own. You claims are not proven because your evidence is not compelling - every single argument has been dealt with, and you have not defended them.

If your only aim was to provide 'evidence', regardless of the strength of such evidence, you could simply have written "Because I said so!" and left this forum satisfied that you had argued your claim. The fact that you have not done so indicates that you wish your argument to be more of a proof; more compelling to readers to accept your assertions as true. In this case, my post above has a handy guide for you.
 
But Chuz - proof is compelling.

"Proof
NOUN:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

You have given some evidences and arguments that support your claims. I (and others) have debunked your evidence/arguments with evidence/arguments of our own. You claims are not proven because your evidence is not compelling - every single argument has been dealt with, and you have not defended them.

If your only aim was to provide 'evidence', regardless of the strength of such evidence, you could simply have written "Because I said so!" and left this forum satisfied that you had argued your claim. The fact that you have not done so indicates that you wish your argument to be more of a proof; more compelling to readers to accept your assertions as true. In this case, my post above has a handy guide for you.

Ian,.. The "proof" is out there... I suspect the lies in your head are impeding your ability to see it for what it is.
 
Ian,.. The "proof" is out there... I suspect the lies in your head are impeding your ability to see it for what it is.
If it were out there, Chuz, you would be posting it, rather than coming up with one-liners without substance.

Prove your claims! Give evidence! If I dismiss it for invalid reasons, point them out - but if you cannot find a single undismissable bit of evidence to back up your statement, you might want to be considering what lies are in your own head.
 
Does the Constitution apply to and protect the "biological" aspect of a human individual (person) or the metaphysical aspect (souls, personality, etc.)?


It covers both.
Pointedly the 'physical' - as in 'no cruel and unusual punishment' as well as 'search and seizure' and so on.
Having a 'soul' is a religious or faith belief - not everyone believes in a soul' - so that is protected with religious "freedoms"

Can someone's soul or personality alone own property, walk, or exist? No - according to most people the body is a vessel and the soul leaves it when the body dies. So it's imparted with the body's freedoms and liberties as long as the body can be bound by human laws and hands.


If you are one who believes in the separation of church and state, answer carefully.

I didn't need to be careful - I think it's quite cut and dry.
 
Last edited:
Biological person obviously, and no the fetus inside the tummy is not a person.

Almost got me,...

I've read too many of your other posts to take the bait.

Just once I wish I could find a choicer who will give direct answers to the questions comments like this provoke.

Maybe someday.
 
Almost got me,...

I've read too many of your other posts to take the bait.

Just once I wish I could find a choicer who will give direct answers to the questions comments like this provoke.

Maybe someday.

A choicer :lol:I love broad insulting tags. In any case what answer are you looking for?
 
You are the first person to vote "metaphysical," Anarcho...

Can you elaborate for me?

Well, I chose "metaphysical" as the best option, but I wouldn't normally use the word like I did in the previous post. I don't mean "metaphysical" as in "supernatural" (I'm an atheist). What I mean is this: The Constitution protects our rights as rational/thinking/feeling/conscious humans.

Rocks don't have rights because they aren't conscious.

Animals don't have the same level of rights as us because they aren't at the same "level" as us. PETA is full of wackos, and I eat meat, but I support fair animal cruelty/welfare laws.

Of course protecting the sentient "person" entails protecting the physical "person", because afaik the sentient originates in the physical, but human rights wouldn't make sense if humans weren't aware. I would have few qualms about letting someone who has absolutely ZERO chance of waking up from a deep dreamless coma die.

I wouldn't usually use "metaphysical" to describe rights but I think it's close enough if it's the only option.

Thesaurus said:
metaphysical
adjective
1 "metaphysical questions" abstract, theoretical, conceptual, notional, philosophical, speculative, intellectual, academic.
2 "Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle" transcendental, spiritual, supernatural, paranormal.
More sense 1, less sense 2.
 
A choicer :lol:I love broad insulting tags. In any case what answer are you looking for?

Not sure how being called a choicer is an insult,... but ok.

Are you willing to do a question and answer session,... one question at a time?

One question per post?
 
Back
Top Bottom