• 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!

Abortion - Holocaust against Human Rights

Re: The law has its own logic

Wan said:
But my question is not whether a fetus is a person. My question is what's so special about being a person. Roe & Wade does not address the second question.
Click to expand...

Persons have rights a fetus doesn’t.
 
Re: Straight from the horse's mouth

Chezanie said:
Southwest88, millions of people were killed under Hitler. Just because something is under the law, does not mean it is correct.

If you let the law dictate your morals for you, well... if the law changed and said killing old people was OK because they were too old to be of use to society anymore, would you go along with it? Or would it challenge your morals?
Click to expand...

The US didn't go as far as Nazi Germany, but it was close - we were involuntarily sterilizing people without due process up until quite recently. See

War against the weak : eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / Edwin Black, c2003, Four Walls Eight Windows, 363.97 Blac.

Subjects
• Eugenics -- United States -- History.
• Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States.
• Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States.
• United States -- Social policy.
• United States -- Moral conditions.

Length
• xxviii, 550 pages, [14] pages of plates :
 
Re: The law has its own logic

minnie616 said:
Persons have rights a fetus doesn’t.
Click to expand...

I did not ask you who has rights and who doesn't. I asked what's so special about being a person.
 
Re: Straight from the horse's mouth

southwest88 said:
The US didn't go as far as Nazi Germany, but it was close - we were involuntarily sterilizing people without due process up until quite recently. See

War against the weak : eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / Edwin Black, c2003, Four Walls Eight Windows, 363.97 Blac.

Subjects
• Eugenics -- United States -- History.
• Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States.
• Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States.
• United States -- Social policy.
• United States -- Moral conditions.

Length
• xxviii, 550 pages, [14] pages of plates :
Click to expand...

And this proves her point. Laws can be wrong, as can be seen from these laws from the past that tried to sterilize people against their will.
 
Re: Eyeless in Gaza

Chezanie said:
That I will do and that I am doing. But I will not do it by debating politicians, as I know politicians do not change their minds easily. I will do it by telling the pregnant woman about the light within her womb.

If you believe morality is just an idea that differentiates between different groups of people, then does good and evil exist? Or is good and evil just a concept made up by people to describe what they did and didn’t like?

If there was no laws whatsoever, would morality be completely up to the individual, to be left unchallenged? Would it be morally right for them to run around and stab everyone they see, and rape young girls and boys?

I know that is an extreme example, but that is what will happen if the world goes by the thinking you have.
Click to expand...

Yah, nice to meet you too. Start a new thread on the topic, if you like.
 
Wan said:
I am not necessarily advocating that we give human rights to the unborn. I am saying that IF (the operative word) the woman has the right to body, why do we not give the right to life to the unborn? This seems to me like some kind of hatred for the unborn.
Click to expand...

All a right to life is is that the GOVT cannot take our lives without due process. (or, in my country, in the case of fundamental justice) It does not mean that I cannot terminate a life inside of MY body.
 
Re: Straight from the horse's mouth

Originally Posted by southwest88
The US didn't go as far as Nazi Germany, but it was close - we were involuntarily sterilizing people without due process up until quite recently. See

War against the weak : eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / Edwin Black, c2003, Four Walls Eight Windows, 363.97 Blac.

Subjects
• Eugenics -- United States -- History.
• Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States.
• Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States.
• United States -- Social policy.
• United States -- Moral conditions.

Length
• xxviii, 550 pages, [14] pages of plates :

Wan said:
And this proves her point. Laws can be wrong, as can be seen from these laws from the past that tried to sterilize people against their will.
Click to expand...

You missed the point here. I bolded it for you in line 1 above.
 
Scrabaholic said:
All a right to life is is that the GOVT cannot take our lives without due process. (or, in my country, in the case of fundamental justice) It does not mean that I cannot terminate a life inside of MY body.
Click to expand...

I never said you could not. I am saying that if you did, you would have committed murder. Against your own young. I hope this makes you happy.
 
Re: Straight from the horse's mouth

southwest88 said:
Originally Posted by southwest88
The US didn't go as far as Nazi Germany, but it was close - we were involuntarily sterilizing people without due process up until quite recently. See

War against the weak : eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / Edwin Black, c2003, Four Walls Eight Windows, 363.97 Blac.

Subjects
• Eugenics -- United States -- History.
• Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States.
• Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States.
• United States -- Social policy.
• United States -- Moral conditions.

Length
• xxviii, 550 pages, [14] pages of plates :



You missed the point here. I bolded it for you in line 1 above.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying. We can sterilize people as long as we follow due process?
 
Re: Straight from the horse's mouth

Wan said:
Not sure what you are saying. We can sterilize people as long as we follow due process?
Click to expand...

Some of those old laws - dating back to the early 1900s - may still be on the books. However, the national political & judicial climate has changed a great deal. Any jurisdiction that attempted involuntary sterilization without due process would quickly find themselves before the Supreme Court, in my opinion. & we can hope they would be sentenced to durance vile.
 
Wan said:
It doesn't matter for what reason blacks were counted as 3/5 of a person. The important thing is that they were treated as only 3/5 of a person, and this was upheld by the laws at that time. Therefore, laws can be wrong.
Click to expand...

ONLY for the census and political representation. Not 100% of the time. Good grief.
 
prometeus said:
Recognition
Click to expand...

Please elaborate.

southwest88 said:
Some of those old laws - dating back to the early 1900s - may still be on the books. However, the national political & judicial climate has changed a great deal. Any jurisdiction that attempted involuntary sterilization without due process would quickly find themselves before the Supreme Court, in my opinion. & we can hope they would be sentenced to durance vile.
Click to expand...

This isn't my point nor chezanie's point. My point is that laws can be wrong, too. Do you dispute this?
 
Scrabaholic said:
ONLY for the census and political representation. Not 100% of the time. Good grief.
Click to expand...

Were those laws wrong? Yes or no. And don't get into the whys. I am asking you a binary question.
 
Wan said:
1. The unborn do not have the ability to crawl yet. So how can it crawl into the wrong uterus?
2. Assuming it's possible to crawl into the "wrong" uterus, this is still not a crime.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Ever heard of figuratively speaking?

Last I heard, trespassing was a crime.
 
Some of my best friends

Wan said:
Please elaborate.

This isn't my point nor chezanie's point. My point is that laws can be wrong, too. Do you dispute this?
Click to expand...

1. Laws are made by humans.

2. Humans are fallible.

3. Therefore, laws can be wrong.

Do you have an alternative you wish to propose? Or some kind of corrective we can apply to the judicial fumblings of poor hapless humanity?
 
Wan said:
....
Click to expand...



Scrabaholic said:
All a right to life is is that the GOVT cannot take our lives without due process. (or, in my country, in the case of fundamental justice) It does not mean that I cannot terminate a life inside of MY body.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

From the following Live Science article:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.
Click to expand...


Read more:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
:roll:

Ever heard of figuratively speaking?
Click to expand...
People only need to speak figuratively when they cannot make their case using literal language.
Last I heard, trespassing was a crime.
Click to expand...
First of all, I believe only properties could be trespassed. Secondly, the fetus still has not committed any crime, for the simple reason that only human agents who have a functional mind can be held criminally liable for their actions.

prometeus said:
Society only recognizes persons.
Click to expand...
Then I will simply ask you, why does society only recognize persons? What's so special about persons?

Scrabaholic said:
I have not called you any names, I'll thank you to give me the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
The way she used "silly" is not in a derogatory manner. It sounds rather like a term of endearment to me, in a sense.


southwest88 said:
1. Laws are made by humans.

2. Humans are fallible.

3. Therefore, laws can be wrong.

Do you have an alternative you wish to propose? Or some kind of corrective we can apply to the judicial fumblings of poor hapless humanity?
Click to expand...
I never said I wanted to change the way things are. I am asking you whether you think laws can be wrong, too. And you failed to answer this simple binary question.

I will ask you again. Laws can be wrong, too. Yes or no.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Except I wouldn't have. FACT.
Click to expand...

You would.

Kindly explain to me why the deliberate killing of a live human is not murder. Other than, "because the laws say so".
 
Wan said:
People only need to speak figuratively when they cannot make their case using literal language.
Click to expand...

Sez who?


First of all, I believe only properties could be trespassed.
Click to expand...


My body IS my property.



The way she used "silly" is not in a derogatory manner. It sounds rather like a term of endearment to me, in a sense.
Click to expand...

Calling someone silly is not a term of endearment.
 
Wan said:
You would.

Kindly explain to me why the deliberate killing of a live human is not murder. Other than, "because the laws say so".
Click to expand...

I have already done so. Crack open a dictionary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom