Roe vs. Wade II

[angela 2]

But hopefully give precious time to the lives of children who would otherwise be murdered in the womb.

You can't murder anything in the womb that isn't viable outside the womb.

When did you guys redefine murder? Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. Is a fetus a human being or only a potential human being?

 

[Woodsy]

You can't murder anything in the womb that isn't viable outside the womb.

When did you guys redefine murder? Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. Is a fetus a human being or only a potential human being?

It is a human being. Abortion stops his or her beating heart.

 

[gengwall]

You can't murder anything in the womb that isn't viable outside the womb.

When did you guys redefine murder? Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. Is a fetus a human being or only a potential human being?

I have stated this elsewhere but it bears repeating. According to an ever growing body of both federal and state law, the unborn are human beings. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act states specifically that the unborn at any stage of development are humans and treats their "termination" as murder within the law.

 

[angela 2]

It is a human being. Abortion stops his or her beating heart.

NO IT'S NOT! And unless you can browbeat a pregnant woman who want abortions into conformity with your thoughts, it will never be a human being.

 

[gengwall]

NO IT'S NOT! And unless you can browbeat a pregnant woman who want abortions into conformity with your thoughts, it will never be a human being.

Sorry - the law and biology disagree.

 

[angela 2]

I have stated this elsewhere but it bears repeating. According to an ever growing body of both federal and state law, the unborn are human beings. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act states specifically that the unborn at any stage of development are humans and treats their "termination" as murder within the law.

Thereby defying every bit of common sense and scientific discovery in this area known to humanity. You may not have noticed, but just because someone says something is so DON'T MAKE IT SO!

All you're giving me is political hogwash as an excuse to further traumatize victims of rape and incest.

 

[gengwall]

Thereby defying every bit of common sense and scientific discovery in this area know to humanity. You may not have noticed, but just because someone says something is so DON'T MAKE IT SO!

All you're giving me is political hogwash as an excuse to further traumatize victims of rape and incest.

What scientific discovery are you referring to? According to biology, from conception on, the unborn are distinct human beings. I challenge you to give any other biological definition. If anything, scientific discovery has highlighted this fact, not disproven it.

 

[angela 2]

Sorry - the law and biology disagree.

The federal law is Roe v Wade. It might be better not to call SD's version of the Dark Ages 'law' until it's tested.

I'm curious to know why you would support a law that violates the discipline of biology. Can God be in favor of calling something that which it is not? Can God be against the nature of human beings as he made them?

 

[gengwall]

The federal law is Roe v Wade. It might be better not to call SD's version of the Dark Ages law until it's tested.

Roe was ambiguous on prenatal personhood. On the opposite side, the Unborn Vicitims of Violence Act and many state laws are very specific about prenatal personhood. If you kill a fetus while commiting a federal offense you are guilty of a second murder. The unborn are given equivalent 14th amendment protection to the mother. Sorry, it's the law.

I'm curious to know why you would support a law that violates the discipline of biology. Can God be against the nature of human beings as he made them. Can God be in favor of calling something that which it is not?

How does declaring the unborn "human beings" violate biology? It is because of biology that such a declaration is made. Please tell me what biology textbook you are reading that describes the unborn at any stage in development as anything other than unique living members of the species homo sapiens.

Once you have done that, show me where God says that the unborn aren't human beings.

 

[burrow_owl]

According to an ever growing body of both federal and state law, the unborn are human beings.

The laws prior to the civil war denied that blacks were people. Does that mean that blacks alive then really weren't people? Or does it mean that the law doesn't have the final say on what things are?

A further point: reread the statutes, gengwall, and you'll see that the statutes define fetii as people only for the purposes of the particular statutes. Outside of those particular statutes, fetii still aren't people. In other words, a legislature could define a dog as a person for purposes of a particular statute. It's a fool that concludes from that dogs are actually people.

 

[angela 2]

What scientific discovery are you referring to? According to biology, from conception on, the unborn are distinct human beings. I challenge you to give any other biological definition. If anything, scientific discovery has highlighted this fact, not disproven it.

My definition of a human being, is a being which is viable outside the womb. How can a fetus that cannot survive unless attached to its mothers placenta qualify as a human being?

Did you know every leaf on a tree is 'distinct?' Does that make them human beings? How about snowflakes? What does "distinct" have to do with this conversation? Did I ever deny each fetus is distinct?

 

[gengwall]

The laws prior to the civil war denied that blacks were people. Does that mean that blacks alive then really weren't people? Or does it mean that the law doesn't have the final say on what things are?

A further point: reread the statutes, gengwall, and you'll see that the statutes define fetii as people only for the purposes of the particular statutes. Outside of those particular statutes, fetii still aren't people.

What's your point. The statutes still declare a fetus is a human being with 14th amendment rights, specifically a right to life. Are you saying that declaration in those statutes is irrelevant since some non-related statute doesn't deal with fetal personhood? I really don't get what you are driving at.

 

[gengwall]

My definition of a human being, is a being which is viable outside the womb. How can a fetus that cannot survive unless attached to its mothers placenta qualify as a human being?

Did you know every leaf on a tree is 'distinct?' Does that make them human beings? How about snowflakes? What does "distinct" have to do with this conversation? Did I ever deny each fetus is distinct?

Well, with all due respect you are not the authority on biology I am looking for. Your definition, (and mine for that matter), is irrelevant.

Each leaf is not genetically distinct. In addition, each leaf is not an individual organism. Snowflakes are not alive. In using distinct, I mean genetically distinct.

 

[burrow_owl]

The statutes still declare a fetus is a human being with 14th amendment rights

Not at all. It's protected by particular laws; that doesn't mean it has rights to due process.

Similarly, my cat Ndugu is protected from being killed - does it have 14th Amendment rights, gengwall? The fetus has no more "right to life" than my cat does, in other words. They're protected by law, but rights only accrue to legal persons - and neither my cat nor a fetus fit that bill.

 

[gengwall]

Not at all. It's protected by particular laws; that doesn't mean it has rights to due process.

Similarly, my cat Ndugu is protected from being killed - does it have 14th Amendment rights, gengwall?

Your cat does not have 14th amendment protection because it is not a person. Now, a state may try to declare that cats are persons, but they will have an awfull hard time making a biological argument. This is not so for the unborn.

 

[burrow_owl]

Your cat does not have 14th amendment protection because it is not a person.

You're starting to catch on to how the law works. That's progress. Ok, try to follow me here - it's the important part: the central holding of Roe was that fetii aren't persons. That's why, when a woman's constitutional right to privacy and the state's interest in protecting fetii conflict, the woman's right to privacy wins. Understand?

 

[gengwall]

You're starting to catch on to how the law works. That's progress. Ok, try to follow me here - it's the important part: the central holding of Roe was that fetii aren't persons. That's why, when a woman's constitutional right to privacy and the state's interest in protecting fetii conflict, the woman's right to privacy wins. Understand?

Ah, show me that in the text of the decision. I think the central holding in Roe was quite the opposite. My read is that the court couldn't make up their mind what fetii were.

Gotta go now. wish I could stay and chat. I'll have to pick it up tomorrow. you get the last word till then.

 

[angela 2]

Each leaf is not genetically distinct. In addition, each leaf is not an individual organism. Snowflakes are not alive. In using distinct, I mean genetically distinct.

Oh for the love of blue blazes. Any fertilized egg of any mammal, fish or reptile is genetically distinct. When we eat a fertilized egg of a chicken, we don't call it a chicken, do we? And don't try to slide out of this by telling me that the eggs we eat are dead. Then do we call it a dead chicken?

What has "genetically distinct" to do with the difference between a fetus which is a potential human being, and a human being that has actualized that potential?

 

[burrow_owl]

I feel lame putting this here when gengwall isn't here, but I'll forget otherwise:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. (410 US 113, 158)

The reasoning here is completely sound, and any originalist should agree with it: since the authors of XIV and those alive at the time never thought the amendment protected fetii, it'd be the height of judicial activism to read that into the law.

 

[angela 2]

Your cat does not have 14th amendment protection because it is not a person.

Voila!

Sorry, I must go too. Tomorrow.