• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

I understand what the law says. It's the same law that said at one time that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. So while it is the law, it does not make it right. So much for the law.

While viability isn't an arbitrary thing, assigning human rights at the point of viability is. That is what I meant, if not what I said. Your definition of human life appears to be arbitrarily based on viability outside the womb.

As I said I had 6 pregnancies but I am not a a mother to 6 children.
I am a mother to 4 children.
My 2 miscarriages were not children they were miscarried fetuses.

We do not count fetuses as children. The US census does not count fetuses as children.
Only the born are children/persons.

Fertilized chicken eggs are not chickens until they hatch.
 
i ever POSED the question in the first place......so why are you PRESSING me for the answer?

For one thing, you haven't been shy about asking people questions about matters they didn't raise in the first place, so you really aren't in a good place to object when someone does the same to you.

For another, unlike your questions, which seem to be more related to your interest in constitutional theory, my question is directly related to the matter at hand (ie abortion)

With that said, I do appreciate your taking the time to try and answer my question

it comes down to :

is government doing its primary duty by-----> protecting life?

some say the unborn is life, ...........and others say it is not, and they believe the woman is the one to decide what to do.

does the woman have the RIGHT, To do with her body IE. PROPERTY ,as she wants to, or can government control her, IE .property, and ban abortion?

I have seen you argue (and correct me if I've misunderstood you) that the fed govt only has those powers which the constitution has explicitely delegated to it. However, no matter how hard I look, I can't find anything in the constitution which says that the govt has been given the power to regulate abortion. Considering the possibility that I have overlooked it, I am asking you to please locate and identify the passage which grants our govt this power.

While I do (again) appreciate your taking the time to respond, I did not ask you to outline your reasoning for why you think the govt has (or does not have) the power to regulate abortion. What I did ask was for you to quote from the Constitution where it authorizes the govt to regulate abortion.
 
Again, you have defined whether the unborn child is a separate entity arbitrarily as being at the point it can survive apart from the mother. There is nothing scientific or factual about this definition you espouse. It is simply that you have a "feeling" that it isn't a person until it can survive on it's own.

As minnies' response shows, with quotes from Roe v Wade, the decision to distinguish between a viable fetus and a non-viable one was not "arbitrary". SCOTUS put a lot of effort into researching the issue in order to come to their conclusion.

And, contrary to your claim, their conclusion that a human does not become a person was not based on any "feeling". Again, it was based on a lot of research into how civilization has traditionally viewed the unborn. You would know this if you read and studied the RvW decision.

The idea that human life should be protected from the "moment of conception" (ie a moment that doesn't actually exist) is the "arbitrary" distinction.
 
As I said ........
We do not count fetuses as children. The US census does not count fetuses as children.
Only the born are children/persons.

I heard what you said. And as I said, you are assigning human rights at the point of viability, and that is an arbitrary assignment.
 
I heard what you said. And as I said, you are assigning human rights at the point of viability, and that is an arbitrary assignment.

It is unreasonable to mention viability in your response because a fetus doesn't become a person at viability. It becomes a person at birth

And it is dishonest to keep insisting that the courts use of viability as the point at which the State begins to have an interest in protecting potential human life is "arbitrary" when it was anything but arbitrary. It's one thing to disagree with a finding, and another to toss around adjectives because you like the way they sound.
 
As minnies' response shows, with quotes from Roe v Wade, the decision to distinguish between a viable fetus and a non-viable one was not "arbitrary". SCOTUS put a lot of effort into researching the issue in order to come to their conclusion.

And, contrary to your claim, their conclusion that a human does not become a person was not based on any "feeling". Again, it was based on a lot of research into how civilization has traditionally viewed the unborn. You would know this if you read and studied the RvW decision.

The idea that human life should be protected from the "moment of conception" (ie a moment that doesn't actually exist) is the "arbitrary" distinction.

"Tradition" often has very little to do with truth. You say that the SCOTUS "did a lot of research" before coming to their conclusion, then state it's based on tradition? OK. So your point is really meaningless when it comes to assigning any factual truth in the RvW decision.
Protecting life at conception (a moment that can be set by observable fact give or take a few minutes), as I said previously, is simply erring on the side of caution based on what is at stake: a human life. I have stated previously that nobody living knows or can say the point at which that life becomes humanity based on any observable fact. Hence I argue that we as a society should err in favor of protecting the life that some would kill.
 
"Tradition" often has very little to do with truth. You say that the SCOTUS "did a lot of research" before coming to their conclusion, then state it's based on tradition? OK. So your point is really meaningless when it comes to assigning any factual truth in the RvW decision.
Protecting life at conception (a moment that can be set by observable fact give or take a few minutes), as I said previously, is simply erring on the side of caution based on what is at stake: a human life. I have stated previously that nobody living knows or can say the point at which that life becomes humanity based on any observable fact. Hence I argue that we as a society should err in favor of protecting the life that some would kill.

You're wasting your time on this guy...

This is a guy that believes and stated the Bill of Rights defines nothing. It's hard to debate with a guy that far out there.

I agree with you tho. We aren't God therefore we shouldn't try to play God when it comes to the validity of a human life, and human life shouldn't be ceased just out of convenience - and that's what an abortion is - a convenience.
 
"Tradition" often has very little to do with truth.

"Truth", with a capital T, is a philosophical notion, not a legal one

You say that the SCOTUS "did a lot of research" before coming to their conclusion, then state it's based on tradition? OK. So your point is really meaningless when it comes to assigning any factual truth in the RvW decision.

Wrong. Their decision was based on factual knowledge. They used these facts to determine the intent of the Founders when they wrote the constitution.

There is nothing dishonest with disagreeing with their findings on philosophical or moral grounds. However, it is just plain dishonest to claim that their ruling was "arbitrary". The word suggests they picked viability and birth at random and without reason when the truth is their decision was not random and based on a set of facts.

Protecting life at conception (a moment that can be set by observable fact give or take a few minutes), as I said previously, is simply erring on the side of caution based on what is at stake: a human life. I have stated previously that nobody living knows or can say the point at which that life becomes humanity based on any observable fact. Hence I argue that we as a society should err in favor of protecting the life that some would kill.

There is no "moment of conception". The fact that even you have to qualify that phrase by building in some "fudge time" demonstrates how arbitrary this notion of a moment of conception is.
 
You're wasting your time on this guy...

This is a guy that believes and stated the Bill of Rights defines nothing. It's hard to debate with a guy that far out there.

It says a lot about 'viability' even decades out of the womb.
 
Also - I want to add this:

These pro-baby killers routinely say: "don't tell me what I can do with my body." That is the equivalent of someone saying "don't tell me I cant shoot some random dude with my gun."

Both situations have a perpetrator and a victim.

So this is NOT a civil liberties issue - its a murder issue.

I'm all for people being able to do what they want to their bodies but a fetus isn't a part of a womans body - a fetus is its own body and individual and an abortion is just as bad as murdering a grown adult. An individual does not have the right to kill another individual be it a fetus or a 115-year-old.
 
"Truth", with a capital T, is a philosophical notion, not a legal one.....

There is no "moment of conception". The fact that even you have to qualify that phrase by building in some "fudge time" demonstrates how arbitrary this notion of a moment of conception is.

Are you a relativist then? I believe in absolute Truth, but don't respect so much SCOTUS or Sangha truth. I don't see much sense it addressing your entire post, as it is based on your relativist philosophy. But for the sake of others who may read this that are trying to grasp the ideas: My "fudge factor" in setting when conception happens is not fudged because it isn't in fact a point in time, it is because we my be unable to pinpoint in our observation exactly when that point happens. So it is a fudge based on our limits of observation, not whether the fact exists or not.
 
You're wasting your time on this guy...

This is a guy that believes and stated the Bill of Rights defines nothing. It's hard to debate with a guy that far out there.

I agree with you tho. We aren't God therefore we shouldn't try to play God when it comes to the validity of a human life, and human life shouldn't be ceased just out of convenience - and that's what an abortion is - a convenience.


Hey Nick. Yeah, I don't necessarily worry whether I can convince someone like this of the facts. But I relish the opportunity to publicly debate the matter so that others can see the arguments on each side. You are very right about abortion being about convenience. That's really all it's about. It is the sad side of our human nature; to justify our horrendous acts because it's for the greater good, whatever the heck that means.
 
Are you a relativist then? I believe in absolute Truth, but don't respect so much SCOTUS or Sangha truth. I don't see much sense it addressing your entire post, as it is based on your relativist philosophy. But for the sake of others who may read this that are trying to grasp the ideas: My "fudge factor" in setting when conception happens is not fudged because it isn't in fact a point in time, it is because we my be unable to pinpoint in our observation exactly when that point happens. So it is a fudge based on our limits of observation, not whether the fact exists or not.

Whether I (or anyone else) believe in Absolute Truth is irrelevant. The law is not designed for, or intended to, divine the Absolute Truth.

And if you can't identify exactly when that "moment" of conception occurs, I don't see how you can't state, as a fact, that the moment actually exists.
 
Hey Nick. Yeah, I don't necessarily worry whether I can convince someone like this of the facts. But I relish the opportunity to publicly debate the matter so that others can see the arguments on each side. You are very right about abortion being about convenience. That's really all it's about. It is the sad side of our human nature; to justify our horrendous acts because it's for the greater good, whatever the heck that means.

I suppose that's why we all come here. However it's mind-boggling how some people just cant get it.

I understand the counterargument on this issue which is: "don't tell me what I can do with my body" but the issue is so much deeper and philosophical than that, but sadly the general consensus is "don't tell me what I can do with my body" - as if a fetus is a body part like an earlobe.
 
I suppose that's why we all come here. However it's mind-boggling how some people just cant get it.

I understand the counterargument on this issue which is: "don't tell me what I can do with my body" but the issue is so much deeper and philosophical than that, but sadly the general consensus is "don't tell me what I can do with my body" - as if a fetus is a body part like an earlobe.

Your argument is basically a variation of an ad hom

The fact that some pro-choicers make a poor argument does not mean that the pro-choice position is wrong. Just as the fact that some anti-choicers make poor argument does not mean that the anti-choice position is wrong

That's why I won't use your weak post to argue that your anti-choice beliefs are wrong. I can use the facts to do so with much more efficiency
 
Whether I (or anyone else) believe in Absolute Truth is irrelevant. The law is not designed for, or intended to, divine the Absolute Truth.

And if you can't identify exactly when that "moment" of conception occurs, I don't see how you can't state, as a fact, that the moment actually exists.

Whether or not the law is designed for or intended to divine absolute Truth matters not. But it is incumbent on me, as an enlightened human being, to divine it as well as I am able, and from there to act on it as well as I am able. You others can muck around with relatives.

I can't say precisely when you were born, but that doesn't mean you don't exist.
 
Whether I (or anyone else) believe in Absolute Truth is irrelevant. The law is not designed for, or intended to, divine the Absolute Truth.

And if you can't identify exactly when that "moment" of conception occurs, I don't see how you can't state, as a fact, that the moment actually exists.

The law absolutely IS intended to "divine" the absolute truth.

The law is in place to set a standard - that standard being absolute known truth to the society it presides.

Now, there are plenty of misguided laws - like making it lawful to kill your fetus but not your gardener... We have laws that contradict laws, but that's only because we elected a bunch of idiots to do nothing but write laws. However we do have common sense laws, like not killing people, not stealing not assaulting people.. It's just too bad "don't murder" your unborn child doesn't fall into any of that common sense.

I suppose the problem is people like you actually believe you can just stretch a law, or you believe a law doesn't apply to you just because you believe you have justified your actions and intent... That's why this country is so screwed.
 
I suppose that's why we all come here. However it's mind-boggling how some people just cant get it.

I understand the counterargument on this issue which is: "don't tell me what I can do with my body" but the issue is so much deeper and philosophical than that, but sadly the general consensus is "don't tell me what I can do with my body" - as if a fetus is a body part like an earlobe.

It is boggling. I don't know if you have a belief in God or not Nick. But for me, I've lately come to realize that People generally will try to be God. Even those who profess Christianity do it to some extent, including myself. It is our sin if you will. I've come to understand that sin is simply rebellion against God. And for me lately, that, at least in part, is rebellion against or disagreement with the Truth.

The compelling statement this brings to mind is Pilot saying to Christ "What is truth?" Wow.
 
Whether or not the law is designed for or intended to divine absolute Truth matters not.

WHen it comes to what the law is, it most certainly does matter.

But it is incumbent on me, as an enlightened human being, to divine it as well as I am able, and from there to act on it as well as I am able. You others can muck around with relatives.

I can't say precisely when you were born, but that doesn't mean you don't exist.

You free to hold opinions on matters of truth. There's nothing wrong with that (quite the opposite in fact). However, we live in a nation whose laws are deternined by a legal document known as the constitution, and not by some random individuals philosophical beliefs.

BTW, as a factuall matter, one need not show when something was created in order to prove that it exists. One need to show proof that it exists. Let me know when you can prove that a "moment of conception" actually exists. The scientific evidence proves that conception is a process, with no clear moment that can be used to mark its' beginning.
 
The law absolutely IS intended to "divine" the absolute truth.

Nonsense. Even in criminal trials, where the consequences are most severe, the standard is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "absolutely, without any doubt, guilty"

The law is in place to set a standard - that standard being absolute known truth to the society it presides.

Now, there are plenty of misguided laws - like making it lawful to kill your fetus but not your gardener... We have laws that contradict laws, but that's only because we elected a bunch of idiots to do nothing but write laws. However we do have common sense laws, like not killing people, not stealing not assaulting people.. It's just too bad "don't murder" your unborn child doesn't fall into any of that common sense.

I suppose the problem is people like you actually believe you can just stretch a law, or you believe a law doesn't apply to you just because you believe you have justified your actions and intent... That's why this country is so screwed.

Wrong. Absolute truth has never been used as a legal standard, which is why you can't cite such a standard being used anywhere in the law
 
Your argument is basically a variation of an ad hom

The fact that some pro-choicers make a poor argument does not mean that the pro-choice position is wrong. Just as the fact that some anti-choicers make poor argument does not mean that the anti-choice position is wrong

That's why I won't use your weak post to argue that your anti-choice beliefs are wrong. I can use the facts to do so with much more efficiency


See this is the problem with you. You think right and wrong is only a matter of perception and not a standard.

That's your flaw and the flaws with your arguments.

You're incapable of understanding right from wrong. In short you're a sociopath. What I'm telling you, and what others have doesn't faze you one bit - you're stuck on your preconceived conclusions and are trying to justify them by bending and stretching rules. You just can't accept the fact murder is wrong because if you did that would make you wrong, so you're going to live your entire life believing murder is subjective just so you can feel you're right and everyone else is wrong. Because this issue really isn't about abortion it's about you selfishly feeling you're right.

Trust me, I have been there once but I realized I was wrong and changed my ways. I stopped feeling the need to defend a partisan political ideology, or talk massive lies or stretch the law to defend it.
 
See this is the problem with you. You think right and wrong is only a matter of perception and not a standard.

That's your flaw and the flaws with your arguments.

You're incapable of understanding right from wrong. In short you're a sociopath. What I'm telling you, and what others have doesn't faze you one bit - you're stuck on your preconceived conclusions and are trying to justify them by bending and stretching rules. You just can't accept the fact murder is wrong because if you did that would make you wrong, so you're going to live your entire life believing murder is subjective just so you can feel you're right and everyone else is wrong. Because this issue really isn't about abortion it's about you selfishly feeling you're right.

Trust me, I have been there once but I realized I was wrong and changed my ways. I stopped feeling the need to defend a partisan political ideology, or talk massive lies or stretch the law to defend it.


Since I've never said anything about what I believe concerning right and wrong, it would be your dishonest argument that is the problem, coupled with your continued reliance on ad hom arguments, which are inherently fallacious.
 
Also - I want to add this:

These pro-baby killers routinely say: "don't tell me what I can do with my body." That is the equivalent of someone saying "don't tell me I cant shoot some random dude with my gun"..
.

I don't say "don't tell me what I can do with my body" because I know the right to privacy is not about what a person can do with their body. The right to privacy is about reproductive rights so your analogy that it is the equivalent of someone saying " don't tell me I can't shoot some random dude with my gun" is just wrong.
 
Nonsense. Even in criminal trials, where the consequences are most severe, the standard is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "absolutely, without any doubt, guilty"



Wrong. Absolute truth has never been used as a legal standard, which is why you can't cite such a standard being used anywhere in the law


What the hell are you talking about?

Do you not understand what "reasonable doubt" means? it means doubt that an individual violated the law - the law that is truth.

It's almost like you're trying to argue law is theory or really doesn't exist.

Here is absolute truth. 720 ILCS 5 - that is the criminal code for Second Degree Murder in Illinois. That code exists, hence it is the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom