Author Topic: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat  (Read 43671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #90 on: April 25, 2011, 04:13:30 PM »
So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?

So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?


My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.

Ok, now we're starting to delve into that area of "sketchy" again.  Is or isn't an unborn child (one not born yet, just to be clear) to be protected by the Government, as one of its primary functions?  Should be a yes or no question, but now you're not only allowing SOCTUS to make that decision for you, but now there's some "specified point"

OK, I'll bite....when is this "specified point" reached?


Quote
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?

Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn?

DEFLECTION ALERT.  I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up.  The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular.  I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected. 

Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??


No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely.  Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?

DEFLECTION ALERT #2
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #91 on: April 25, 2011, 04:25:24 PM »
So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?

So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?


My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.

Ok, now we're starting to delve into that area of "sketchy" again.  Is or isn't an unborn child (one not born yet, just to be clear) to be protected by the Government, as one of its primary functions?  Should be a yes or no question, but now you're not only allowing SOCTUS to make that decision for you, but now there's some "specified point"

OK, I'll bite....when is this "specified point" reached?


Quote
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?

Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn?

DEFLECTION ALERT.  I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up.  The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular.  I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected. 

Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??


No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely.  Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?

DEFLECTION ALERT #2

Specified point:
The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey

by Mark Tushnet, from Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, pp. 162

"The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman. This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians are willing to perform them.

In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. The uncertainty of this prediction might lead physicians to refrain from performing abortions if, as Roe seemed to suggest, states could readily prohibit post-viability abortions. The Court thus stressed that viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion decision.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/roe2.html

Quote
DEFLECTION ALERT.  I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up.  The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular.  I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected.

Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??

yet you said the governments primary function was to defend those who are unable to defend themselves and gave as examples laws on the books designed to punish those who kill mothers and the unborn.

What i did was question the effectiveness of this protection and agreed that the laws were designed to punish.






sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #92 on: April 25, 2011, 04:31:33 PM »
No, what you did, was try to claim something I never did, that 2 counts of murder, was merely a "harsher punishment", analogus to hate crimes.  I've said all along that 2 counts of murder are because 2 PERSONS were murdered.  Plain and simple.  YOU, on the other hand are concluding that's the reason for the 2 counts.  Refresh my memory......are you in favor of hate crimes?

Which brings us back to your sketchy answer, one that could have been made with 1 sentence.....X is the specified point.  Apparently, you're just going to hide in the legaleze.  So be it
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #93 on: April 25, 2011, 04:35:11 PM »
Quote
Which brings us back to your sketchy answer, one that could have been made with 1 sentence.....X is the specified point.  Apparently, you're just going to hide in the legaleze.  So be it

So are you no longer claiming that this is a nation of laws?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #94 on: April 25, 2011, 04:45:20 PM »
Boy your good at referencing points I never made     ::)    So, no position on hate crimes either.  gotcha.  Lemme guess......it depends, right?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #95 on: April 25, 2011, 08:29:54 PM »
I don't think crimes based on hate should be punished more severely than crimes based on passion or finance. If there is a racial or other bigoted bias involved, perhaps it can be litigated in civil court.

Meanwhile my query as to your stance on rule of law seems to remain unanswered. I shall pout, be petulant and observe your silence speaks volumes.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #96 on: April 25, 2011, 08:43:45 PM »
Murdering is against the law

Obamacare is legaleze

Your answer is in the semantics.  I'm a rule of law guy...not a rule of leagalize guy
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #97 on: April 25, 2011, 08:48:08 PM »
I really doubt that Obama would favor NOT prosecuting the violent beating that the woman gave the alleged transsexual.
No one was murdered. I don't think that Obama favors murder, either, whatever the motivation.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7931
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #98 on: April 25, 2011, 09:17:28 PM »
hmm

since I wasn`t around then

would that person 60 years ago get any help at all or simply be left in the alley to die. do people die alot in alleys in the 50`s??

the last time I recall somebody died in a alley was 20 years ago.

the whole point of hate crime laws is to finally get the police involved in a crime involving certain people who tend to die in alleys..

no proof those laws work,but most definitely no proof it doesn`t- meaning people are dying less in alleys today
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 09:38:38 PM by kimba1 »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #99 on: April 25, 2011, 10:26:54 PM »
I really doubt that Obama would favor NOT prosecuting the violent beating that the woman gave the alleged transsexual.
No one was murdered. I don't think that Obama favors murder, either, whatever the motivation.


Good thing no one claimed, or even implied any of that.  Nice strawman though
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #100 on: April 25, 2011, 11:05:26 PM »
One cannot be a citizen of any country without being born first.

Fetuses gain their citizenship only when they leave the womb.

The anti-abortion fanatics will be trying to grant citizen ship to a gleam in a man's eye next. But only if the glimmer is within the US and the eye belongs to a citizen.

A fetus is not a person until it is born. It cannot be a citizen until it is a person.

So what makes a person a person is that the government recognises IT to be a person.

This is very recursive.

Is it your opinion that  while the government refused  to recognise the citizenship of black persons that they were not persons in fact?

So that in particular the  Dread Scott decision was not wrong?

If a person is only what the government says a person is then the government has in its hands already the complete solution to the Social Security problem. A simple declaration that all persons above a certain age are non-persons just as fetus-es are and then the load that the government must carry is suddenly lightened.

   Persons above the critical age could be aborted , by properly qualified personell of course.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #101 on: April 25, 2011, 11:36:32 PM »
In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb.


   Younger and smaller Premies are rescued every year as science continues to learnbetter how to rescue them .

      Does this make it a states responsibility to decide by a quickly changeing standard what is a person? Or is the status of a person as a person really entirely the states right of fiat to declare?


   This question to BT and XO both, would McBeths foe McDuff have ever been a citizen under these rules since by the definition of his times he was never born?

Quote
MACBETH AND MACDUFF GET INTO AN ARGUMENT OVER SEMANTICS.
BY Raphael Bob-Waksberg
- - - -

 
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/4/9waksberg.html

(Macbeth and Macduff are fencing in front of a castle.)

MACBETH: Macduff! Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests. I bear a charmed life, which must not yield to one of woman born.

MACDUFF: Despair thy charm! Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripped.

(They stop sword fighting.)

MACBETH: Pardon?

MACDUFF: I was extracted surgically, in an operation.

MACBETH: Okay, but thou wast still born, right?

MACDUFF: No. Untimely ripped.

MACBETH: Okay, but after thou wast ripped, thou wast of woman born.

MACDUFF: I don't know...

MACBETH: Wast thou ripped from a man?

MACDUFF: No...

MACBETH: Then thou wast of woman born, what's the problem?

MACDUFF: I think, technically, to be "born" you need to pass through the birth canal.

MACBETH: No. If you exist, then you were born.

MACDUFF: I grant you it's a bit of a gray area.

MACBETH: No! Any sane definition of the word "born" would also house the subcategory of Cesarean sections.

MACDUFF: Okay, thou hast no need to get snippy.

MACBETH: I'm not snippy.

MACDUFF: Thou ist. A little bit.

MACBETH: Well I'm a little stressed out right now. They said, "No man of woman born—"

MACDUFF: Who said?

MACBETH: The old ladies. By the side of the road.

MACDUFF: Uh... huh.

(Cut to: Macduff and Macbeth by the side of the road, looking at three old dancing witches.)

WITCH: Dibble dabble dribble doo. Put a monkey in a stew.

MACBETH: Okay, well, now they're just talking gibberish but before they said, "Fear not till Birnam wood do come to Dunsinane" and—

MACDUFF: Which it did.

MACBETH: No! You dressed up like the wood. That's not the same thing at all.

MACDUFF: Look. I'm just going to kill thee, okay?

MACBETH: No! Thou canst! Because thou wast of woman born!

MACDUFF: Okay, seriously though, thou needst to chill out, a little bit, with the "of woman born" stuff. Have you consulted a physician about this, or did you just declare yourself the expert on the differences between "born" and "not born"?

MACBETH: You want to consult a physician? Because honestly I would LOVE to consult a physician about this.

MACDUFF: Let's go.

MACBETH: Let's go right now, I'm not doing anything.

(Cut to: Macduff and Macbeth in a doctor's hut.)

DOCTOR: All right, explain it to me again?

MACBETH: Okay, Macduff—who is standing before you right here!—was he born? Or was he—and remember, we're talking about this guy, who exists!—not born?

MACDUFF: Don't forget, I was from my mother's womb untimely ripped!

MACBETH: Yes, mother's womb! MOTHER. OF WOMAN BORN.

MACDUFF: Doctor?

DOCTOR: Yeah, I don't know. This is like the thirteenth century. Medical science isn't really... I mean, if you're feeling sick, maybe you have a demon inside you and you could swallow a snake to find the demon and then the snake will eat the demon and you won't be sick anymore, but then, yeah, how do we get the snake out, right?

MACBETH: Well, thank you very much; you were of no help at all.

MACDUFF: Look, I didn't want to get into a whole THING with this... Yeah, I'm just gonna kill you now.

MACBETH: No! Thou ist of woman—I mean, is everyone else crazy here, or is it me?

(Macduff stabs Macbeth in the heart.)

MACBETH: Ow!

(Macduff shrugs. Macbeth dies. Then Macduff puts Macbeth's head on a stick, of all things. Audience applauds politely, but secretly thinks maybe this Shakespeare guy is kind of losing it.)

- - - -
Macbeth (V,7-8): Macbeth Meets Macduff in Final Battle
http://www.thisismacbeth.com/

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #102 on: April 26, 2011, 12:06:55 AM »
One cannot be a citizen of any country without being born first.

Fetuses gain their citizenship only when they leave the womb.

The anti-abortion fanatics will be trying to grant citizen ship to a gleam in a man's eye next. But only if the glimmer is within the US and the eye belongs to a citizen.

A fetus is not a person until it is born. It cannot be a citizen until it is a person.


So what makes a person a person is that the government recognises IT to be a person.

This is very recursive.

Is it your opinion that  while the government refused  to recognise the citizenship of black persons that they were not persons in fact?

So that in particular the  Dread Scott decision was not wrong?

If a person is only what the government says a person is then the government has in its hands already the complete solution to the Social Security problem. A simple declaration that all persons above a certain age are non-persons just as fetus-es are and then the load that the government must carry is suddenly lightened.

Persons above the critical age could be aborted , by properly qualified personell of course.
--------------------
Younger and smaller Premies are rescued every year as science continues to learnbetter how to rescue them .

Does this make it a states responsibility to decide by a quickly changeing standard what is a person? Or is the status of a person as a person really entirely the states right of fiat to declare?

This question to BT and XO both, would McBeths foe McDuff have ever been a citizen under these rules since by the definition of his times he was never born?


Bravo
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #103 on: April 26, 2011, 12:22:35 AM »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #104 on: April 26, 2011, 11:43:11 AM »
By leave the womb, I meant by both natural and surgical means of course.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."