Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Domi_Adsum_05 said:But hopefully give precious time to the lives of children who would otherwise be murdered in the womb.
angela 2 said: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 said: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?
gengwall said: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.
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 said: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.
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.gengwall said:Sorry - the law and biology disagree.
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.angela 2 said: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.
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.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?
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?gengwall said:According to an ever growing body of both federal and state law, the unborn are human beings.
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?gengwall said: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.
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.burrow_owl said: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.
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.angela 2 said: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?
Not at all. It's protected by particular laws; that doesn't mean it has rights to due process.The statutes still declare a fetus is a human being with 14th amendment rights
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 said: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?
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 said:Your cat does not have 14th amendment protection because it is not a person.
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.burrow_owl said: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 said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?