Druggie Whitney Houston I'm sad for you....BUT

[BT]

THAT's a different question.  The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand.  So NO, that's not what I'm saying

Actually it isn't a different question. You have extended a right to women to chose whether to have a child. Which is mighty generous of you. But you didn't clearly limit the options available with this grant of a right.

Perhaps you could expand on the choices available with this right.

[Plane]

Is there no diffrence between the right to have a child or not and the right to kill a child or not?

[BT]

Apparently there is dispute as to the legal definition of child.

[Plane]

Apparently there is dispute as to the legal definition of child.

Oh?

As there was a dispute in the definition of Dredd Scott's citizenship?

I don't think the dispute arises from the subject being non human, the dispute is about the personal rights of this humans owner, as it was for Dredd Scott.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Dred Scott has nothing to do with abortion. Slavery has nothing to do with abortion. I have no idea why you keep dredging this crap up.



To be a human being, you must be born. If you are unborn, you are (a) invisible to humans by the naked eye and (b) a fetus.

A fetus is not a human being. Period.

[BT]

Oh?

As there was a dispute in the definition of Dredd Scott's citizenship?

Are you stating that the legal grounds for the decision of the Supreme Court was incorrect based on existing law in 1857?

[Plane]

Do the blind have no reason to respect the rights of other human beings?

If I learn how to pronounce your name in Latin do I gain the right to kill you?

Thomas Jefferson , no less, searched his mind dilligently for justifacations of slavery, racial distinctions that could be magnified into differences irreconcileable with the respect due a citizen.

   I don't really know what you look like , but if you look diffrent enough, if you need diffrent things, if you smell funny to me, if you like strange food, can I discount your humanity by how diffrent your humanity is from mine?

I don't know if you are large or small, is the one of us that is larger more human for being a more massive human?

I see a very close parrellel bewtween the intelectualls who needed intelectual justifacations for denying the human rights of other races in the 18th century and people who today try to intellectualise diffrences between "born" and "pre-born" as reasons to deny the humanity of a person who if left to develop another hour would be a person fully.

It is not rational, it is an attempt to clothe in rationality an irrational thing that seems necessacery.

   I think that Thomas Jefferson realised the dissonance , but endured it well enough to operate his plantation.

    This is exactly what we are looking at today , but too near to see.

[sirs]

THAT's a different question.  The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand.  So NO, that's not what I'm saying

Actually it isn't a different question.

Actually, it is.  Rights of anyone are sacrosanct...UNTIL they abridge the rights of another.   The woman has an absolute right to want or not want a child.  Again, never been the issue.  When that 3rd party is brought into the equation, THAT's when your question about abortion enters....which makes it altogether a different question

 

[Plane]

Oh?

As there was a dispute in the definition of Dredd Scott's citizenship?

Are you stating that the legal grounds for the decision of the Supreme Court was incorrect based on existing law in 1857?

Yes it was!

Have you ever perused the majority opinion?

It includes this reduction to absurdity; That to recognise the citizenship of a black man would make it impossible to deny him firearms. Obviously this is impossible to allow.
   Now is this real logic?
    There was law that should have protected Dredd Scott, but Justice Tanney saw desaster in its enforcement, unfortunately didn't see the desaster even more immanant in denying the humanity of what should have obviously been a human being.

[BT]

And your position is that a nonviable embryo has rights that trump the rights of the host?

[BT]

There was law that should have protected Dredd Scott

Which law was that?

[Plane]

THAT's a different question.  The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand.  So NO, that's not what I'm saying

Actually it isn't a different question.

Actually, it is.  Rights of anyone are sacrosanct...UNTIL they abridge the rights of another.   The woman has an absolute right to want or not want a child.  Again, never been the issue.  When that 3rd party is brought into the equation, THAT's when your question about abortion enters....which makes it altogether a different question

Well said!

[Plane]

There was law that should have protected Dredd Scott

Which law was that?

." His case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, he had lived with his master Dr. John Emerson in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court decided 7-2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott


   Justice Taney ruled the Mousouri compromise unconstitional after the Congress has struggled so to produce it.
   I guess he thought he needed to, but his efforts only helped widen the schism.

[sirs]

THAT's a different question.  The right to have or not have a child was the question at hand.  So NO, that's not what I'm saying

Actually it isn't a different question.

Actually, it is.  Rights of anyone are sacrosanct...UNTIL they abridge the rights of another.   The woman has an absolute right to want or not want a child.  Again, never been the issue.  When that 3rd party is brought into the equation, THAT's when your question about abortion enters....which makes it altogether a different question

Well said!

Thanks Plane.  It happens every once in a great while     

[BT]

   Justice Taney ruled the Mousouri compromise unconstitional after the Congress has struggled so to produce it.
   I guess he thought he needed to, but his efforts only helped widen the schism.

Except that the Kansas Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise 3 years earlier.