Jedi Council Forums - Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 2/5/02 12:48am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	Guys come on, I think we made our point clear. If you actually look at the whole sum of our views, they all compliment each other and make sense, if you agree with our views. Just a few things, if you take a fetus out of the womb it cannot be. It will not be a human being. It will be a dead fetus. If you take a pre-mature baby out of the womb, it CAN still live and it IS a human being deserving of all such rights under the law. And about fathers, it isn't an issue of their rights until the fetus becomes a human child. Since the fetus is part of the mother's body and a woman should have the right to do what she feels best, it is her decision. And for the record, we didn't equate murder with alchohol, because if you were reading our posts we said abortion was not murder. Personally, I think irresponsible sex is morally wrong, and I think abortion is morally irresponsible. But I believe that the fetus is just a step towards human life, just like sperm cells and egg cells are alive, they aren't human, they are just steps towards humanity. In addition, to all the "where does human life begin" questions, that's like asking when a fruit will become ripe. It's not like there is an exact moment a fruit is ripe, but there is a clear before and after. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Goldberry Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 3:52am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	This is not about the "child's" right to life (if indeed it is a child). The Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion hinged on a woman's right to control her person. It's a very strong commonlaw right - you can't sell someone a use or a right in your body. You may sign a contract saying that you will give someone your kidney, but if you back out at the last moment they cannot force you to give up that organ. They may have some legal recompense in the courts, but they will not receive your kidney. Even if a fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to use a woman's body against her will for its development. This is an argument that was first made by Judith Jarvis Thompson, and it remains unanswered in my judgement by anyone on the other side. -----signature----- 'Mary 'ad a little lamb. I bit it in the head.' - Balrog of Moria http://www.yougotta.com/Goldberry
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 7:47am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	Just a few things, if you take a fetus out of the womb it cannot be. It will not be a human being. It will be a dead fetus. If you take a pre-mature baby out of the womb, it CAN still live and it IS a human being deserving of all such rights under the law. In other words, if you deny the fetus nutrition and proper environment in which to grow, and it dies, it's not human?! Dude, the exact same is true for EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING out there. A fetus just requires a more protective environment because it isn't very mature yet. It's like throwing a toddler into a lake. The kid drowns. Throw an adult into a lake, he swims to shore. That does not, in any way, lessen the fact that both are human beings. In addition, to all the "where does human life begin" questions, that's like asking when a fruit will become ripe. It's not like there is an exact moment a fruit is ripe, but there is a clear before and after. And yet, it's clearly a fruit throughout . . . either not ripe enough or too ripe. Never truly perfect. But always a fruit. Even if a fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to use a woman's body against her will for its development. When the woman does the deed, she is fully aware of the consequences (don't go clouding up the issue by bringing up all kinds of "instances" now ). If the contraceptives fail, she can sue the manufacturer, but she is no less responsible for the results of her actions. When compared to your analogy, the only time she can really still pull out without denying her responsibility for any consequences is before she does 'it.' -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Republic_Clone_69 Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 8:55am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	There is a difference between murder and self-defense. However, a woman must be in reasonable fear for her life to be acting in self-defense. In a case like this, the woman should be allowed to decide to choose her life over the child's. *** When the woman does the deed, she is fully aware of the consequences... When compared to your analogy, the only time she can really still pull out without denying her responsibility for any consequences is before she does 'it.' You both are forgetting something very fundamental; if abortion was ILLEGAL, the woman would not be able to choose her life over the child in such a dire situation... nor would she be able to abort a pregnancy that was a result of rape or incest (is she fully "responsible for any consequences" in such a case?). The is not such a black and white issue... there are always extenuating circumstances. This is why if abortion was made a crime, it would be a violation of our most fundamental rights. These women (even if they are few in number) would have no recourse under the law. I agree that abortion should not be used as a form of "birth control", but it must not be banned either! Why must the pendulum swing so far in either direction? -----signature----- You REALLY want to know what I look like under this helmet, don't you?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 9:09am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	In such cases where a pregnant woman is in danger of dying because of her pregnancy, then abortions should be legal. I mean, if the mother dies the kid dies anyway. So it makes sense to get an abortion. In cases of rape . . . there's a murky issue. On the one hand, the fetus is no less deserving of life, is no less human, but on the other hand the mother did not accept the responsibility of the pregnancy. Keep in mind that, no matter that it is her body, she would be pereptrating murder if she killed the child, because her conscious withdrawal of the necessities of life brought about someone's death. If an old lady is slowly shuffling across the street just when some out-of-control cabbie careens around the corner and accelerates straight towards her, do you have some responsibility, be it social or moral, to save that old woman's life if you could? It's the same principle. (There wasn't supposed to be an inherent answer in above question, BTW; just a dilemma). -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 2/5/02 9:35am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	"no matter that it is her body, she would be pereptrating murder if she killed the child, because her conscious withdrawal of the necessities of life brought about someone's death." -People who advocate the pro-life attitude. We will never get anywhere if you insist on using this as your argument. We don't buy it. A fertus is not a human life and therfore not murder. That is really all there is to debate, wheter it is human life or not. A fetus is not a baby. If you take it out of the mother's womb, there is no amount of nutrition or anything that can be provided to allow that fetus to develop into a human. I mean, any female egg will turn into a baby if properly nurished and fertalized with sperm, yet eggs are not considered human life, even though they are indeed live cells. Pre-mature babies ARE human, quite clearly, and that is why the argument against late term abortions is the only one that makes sense to most who believe in a woman's right to choose. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 9:44am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	A fertus is not a human life and therfore not murder. That is really all there is to debate, wheter it is human life or not. Fertus? Let me make this quite clear: A fetus is human; a fetus is alive. Unless you've got some new standard which defies all of modern biology, that translates into a 'live human.' I mean, any female egg will turn into a baby if properly nurished and fertalized with sperm, yet eggs are not considered human life, even though they are indeed live cells. Eggs are not human beings. It's that simple. What you're basically saying is that a fetus is not a human being because it will not grow up to be one if it is denied a proper environment in which to mature. The exact same is true for all 'accepted' human beings. Your argument doesn't fly . . . -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 10:43am Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread) - Date Edited: 2/5/02 10:48am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Prove to me a fetus is not capable of being an individual, and you'll have a point. Show me how the necessary conditions required to continue one's life add or detract from that person's humanity and individuality, and you'll have a point. Until then you have no converts. First of all, I'm not seeking any converts. I don't ask or require that anyone believe what I believe. Biologically, as anyone in the medical or biological field can tell you, a fetus is incapable of being an individual human being at the time. Biologically, a born child, and in some cases premature, is absolutely capable of surviving outside the womb given the normal conditions of parenting that any parent can reasonably administer on their own. If you're suggesting that abortion is unnatural... so is it also unnatural to cut a fetus out of the womb at four weeks and assume it can survive without biological (i.e. intercirculatory/interdigestive) attachment from its parent. I agree with Obi-Wan McCartney. You know what it is we're saying. The idea that abortion is murder first requires everyone to agree with the assumption that a fetus is a biologically-independent human life and, as Goldberry stated, that it has a right to use a woman's body against her will for her development. This form of life would be more akin biologically to a parasite, not a human being. Therefore, one can't contend it has human rights when it has not yet developed into a human being. Would it help if there were more feminists against abortion? Probably not. Feminism has become a political stage not so much for equality but for a total reversal in power. Most feminists in the public eye seem to be fundamentalist-extremists themselves. Their interest is not to gain equality with man, but to gain power over man.. which makes them an ironic counterpoint to the men whom they objectify as barbaric chauvinists lusting after power like moths to a flame. But a newborn baby who is just as dependent for its survival is granted its individual rights. Where is the difference? I already explained the difference between psychological, nutritional and intersystematic biological dependence above. How do you compare murder with the comnsumption of alcohol? I'm not comparing murder with alcohol consumption... I'm comparing abortion with alcohol consumption. The aim, I suppose, is for everyone to realize that a fetus is a child, not a spare part that can be tossed aside at will. The result, hopefully, would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies -- and almost no abortions. Maybe not everyone wants their thoughts on the condition of life to be legislated. Let me explain: You can't create a law demanding that everyone value life in the same way and expect that everyone or anyone will follow it... at least not under the provisions of our government. If that is the intention of anti-abortion legislation, it will fail. We don't create laws against murder that demand everyone value life in the same way... we create them to deal with what happens when people commit murders. In that sense, laws aren't a good substitute for education. It is the education and experience a person has in life that makes them value life. This, of course, is precisely why I do not support either pro-life or pro-choice movements. Pro-choice supports not only the educational initiatives, but primarily the need for a Congressional mandate defining how we should value life... as if it shouldn't be a personal choice. It isn't Congress's responsibility to interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the courts. This misapplication of interest is mainly because both sides are interested in forcing their particular views on the whole of society for no other reason than to get people to believe in the same thing they do. It has less to do with a child's right to life and more to do with adults' self-proclaimed right to tell everyone else what to think. The laws regarding murder do not say "Thou shalt not kill." They do not necessarily even define murder specifically, but vaguely... the definition of which can be interpreted or modified by the courts or law enforcement agencies investigating each particular case... (e.g. homicide vs. manslaughter vs. suicide, etc. etc.). Once an individual case has been deemed a murder... then the LAW, as Congress has established it, applies the federal criminal penalties. Therefore, it's my contention that no legislation is needed to define or even imply that abortion is murder when we already have laws that provide for the proper resources to decide WHICH cases of abortion are willful murder, and which aren't. It is very important that we do not engage our government in making blanket judgements that whittle away at specific Constitutional rights... including due process (6th Amendment) and freedom from cruel or unusual punishment (8th Amendment), among others. What about the child that would not necessarily perish if given a chance? Again this requires prima facie evidence(Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.) on a case-by-case basis. Prove that a specific abortion case is a murder, and the courts will grant that judgement and it will be entered into jurisprudence as a precedent upon which similar cases could be argued. In addition, one cannot always decide cases based on what could be... but rather what is. If its true that alcohol can lead to car accidents, it's not logical to ban alcohol.. but it is logical to apply the laws of vehicular manslaughter and perhaps even compound the applicable fines in that case given the individual's lack of judgement in putting others at risk while driving under the influence of a substance known and proven to impair one's judgement and motor skills. In a democratic system, judgements cannot be arrived at equitably if blanket assumptions are established into law. And again, what about the newborn baby who is thrown into a dumpster? It cannot survive alone, but its rights are still recognized. Throwing a live baby in a dumpster is a different issue, and currently, no one is simply tossed in prison before having a trial to establish sufficient evidence of their particular crime. Should we leave theft and murder to people to control on their own, since they have just the same ability you do to control their behavior? As I've stated in this post already, certain types of laws cannot work in a democratic society. The laws that do work generally deal with defining how our society should deal with something once it has happend, instead of expecting (foolishly) the people will follow a set of "thou shalts" that are more designed to expect people to all think in the same fashion, rather than provide any recourse for what happens when they do harm to other people's rights. Even Constitutional amendments are interpreted on a regular basis by the Supreme Court... and the due process to get an issue there is certainly warranted because changing the fabric of our Constitution should never be as simple or black and white as a ruler saying, "Ok, nobody can get a trial by jury anymore." That's not a democratic form of government (including, but not limited to, Democratic Republics such as ours). Tell me this: what is the purpose of our government? What is the purpose of our Constitution? The purpose of our government in particular is to make laws, interpret them, and execute them. The purpose of the Constitution was to define what powers the government is limited to, and establishes, in the 10th amendment to the Constitution, that those powers not given expressly to the governments, federal or state, are granted to the people. It entrusts the people with the right of self-governance. When combined with the protections offered by the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights expresses that the pre-eminent right of the people that is protected by the government is this: To make, interpret and enforce laws, so long as those laws have the people's consent, and do not abridge the people's basic freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government's protection cannot extend to an unborn child unless the people decide, by a majority representation of their elected Congressmen and women, that such protection is warranted. The president's opinion, even if an educated one, doesn't in and of itself make something law, or constitutionally acceptable for that matter. Even if we can allow ourselves to make a change in the definition of life... a change with such sweeping implications across so many areas... Even if we do that, it has to follow the same process... the same system of checks and balances... as any other idea that someone wants to see inscribed into the lawbooks. Even after a Presidential veto, legislation for or against this definition of life can still be passed by overriding the veto with a 2/3 majority in Congress. It will then also have to stand the test of court interpretations over time. The judicial branch ensures that whatever laws get written are kept relevant to the times, and the unforeseen circumstances that may affect our society in the future. And after answering me that, tell me why the government's protection should not extend to an unborn child. And let's debate that, rather than your personal values vs. mine. If the people of America can agree on Bush's definition of life as much as we agree on the definition of murder, rape or moving violations... then we can deliberate on just in how many ways the government's protection can extend to an unborn child. Until then, it really is just a matter of your opinion vs. mine, and it's not worthy of legislation... either pro-life or pro-choice. As Obi-Wan McCartney's fruit example so eloquently points out... not everyone agrees on an absolutist definition of life... so the government has no business legislating something for which there isn't a majority consensus. The price of democracy is that every person must be as involved in it as they can be... otherwise, all views cannot be represented. More than half the views in this country don't get represented because not enough people go to the polls or write their Congressmen and women. The Bush administration has used this "definition" as a clear means of supporting their core voters' initiatives with a cleverly-crafted compromise that wins immediate support from those interested in providing healthcare eligibility for unborn children, but through that language it helps lay a path for bypassing due process in determining whether or not abortions can be considered legal. How so? Because it attempts clearly to set a precedent that influences abortion legislation without actually subjecting abortion legislation itself to due process and consideration. In other words, it's like proving Evolution by disproving Creation... or vice-versa. This clever shell game has been used by the Bush administration to fool protagonists into thinking that it can provide benefits to a child that aren't already provided or implied anyway. This is clear because unborn children can already be provided healthcare through the parent when the definition of an unborn child is that it is a biological component of the parent until it is born. Technically, the laws already provide for that unborn child... as a biological component of the mother but not as a biologically independent entity. Unfortunately, what door this opens up is that now... Instead of paying premium for the coverage of one individual... Insurance companies, who are definitely in bed with the Bush administration, will benefit from Bush's unilateral rhetoric by being able to charge higher premiums because they're supposedly covering two "individuals" instead of one. Nevermind that the child at that point cannot biologically exist separate from the parent. Maybe for his next magic trick, Bush would like to declare that each room in a house is really a separate house... so telephone companies can charge us an entire phone bill for each phonejack in our house... even though they're all on the same phone line; and utilities companies can charge us access fees and heating surcharges for each room in our house, regardless of how much total energy our household consumes. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 12:16pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	Biologically, as anyone in the medical or biological field can tell you, a fetus is incapable of being an individual human being at the time. There's every reason to believe that a fetus is just as much an individual before it's born as after. Maybe you mean 'independent' instead of 'individual.' If you're suggesting that abortion is unnatural... so is it also unnatural to cut a fetus out of the womb at four weeks and assume it can survive without biological (i.e. intercirculatory/interdigestive) attachment from its parent. You're defining something as a human being if the sum of its parts, when given proper nutrition and a proper environment, work together efficiently for the continuation of the whole. So anybody hooked up to any machine which mimics a bodily function (i.e., kidney dialysis) is not a human being, then? Therefore, one can't contend it has human rights when it has not yet developed into a human being. Please spell out for me, in no uncertain terms, what you consider to be a human being. This misapplication of interest is mainly because both sides are interested in forcing their particular views on the whole of society for no other reason than to get people to believe in the same thing they do. I could give a hoot what other people think. Abortion is murder (allow me my rhetoric, will ya? ) As Obi-Wan McCartney's fruit example so eloquently points out... not everyone agrees on an absolutist definition of life... so the government has no business legislating something for which there isn't a majority consensus. There's another flaw in his fruit example, BTW . . . following that analogy, we wouldn't know that a human being was a human being until it had fully matured and begun to degrade again (i.e., sometime in a human's twenties or late teens). And again, you're spouting this pure democracy "don't do anything unless a majority of the people like it" stuff. That's not how this country works. This country, above all, protects the right to due process of law to all in its jurisdiction. You must realize that Bush IS a conservative President. By NOT attempting to lead the country in the way he sees fit, he's being weak. I.E., a bad President. I would've respected Clinton more if he'd done what he thought was best rather than playing his decisions to the flippin' popularity polls. A President doesn't do the majority's bidding. He does (or should do) what he thinks is right. Damn bi-partisanship. Going half-way on either liberal or conservative philosophy is asking for trouble, because neither (especially the conservative ideology) work half-way. -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 2/5/02 2:40pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	ok, I never said that a fruit was like a child. I said, just like you don't know the exact moment a fruit become RIPE, we don't know the exact moment a fetus becomes a child. Also, your arguments cocerning babies who need care or elderly or disabled who used machines and such to live. An aborted fetus has not finished developing. There is a biological difference between a fetus and a human, a fetus hasn't grown all the parts together. And again, it's not cut and dry, please don't say something ridiculous like "so are you saying if you cut off someone's arm they aren't human?" No, but what I am saying, is that a FETUS is a just that, and it is the precursor to human life. And it's not just about proper care, INTERNALLY the fetus is dependant on another organism. You can't take a fetus out of a mother's body and give it proper nutrition and all the things it needs because it is impossible. In addition, don't forget that the Supreme Court viewed it as a privacy issue. Privacy is one of the most fundamental rights we value in this country, you as conservatives should understand the notion that the government should interfere with our lives as little as possible. A fetus lives INSIDE THE MOTHER. The government should have no right, (and doesn't, I might add,) to govern the inside of a woman's body. The decision to bear or beget a child is considered to be a fundamental right that the government cannot take away. Again, I really can understand the pro-life argument, and that abortions are immoral. I can believe that. But from a legal standpoint, it's not your decision to make, it's the mother's. I mean, like Chris Rock said, fellas, you wouldn't want a bunch of women deciding how you use your scrotum do you? If the government feels so strongly that abortions should be stopped, then I suggest they figure out some way to take a fetus out of a mother and grow it into a human being outside her, or pay host mothers to carry the babies to term, and then these children can go straight from the orphanage to the welfare line, which of course, wouldn't exist, because if conservatives ever won the abortion battle then I'm sure they could win the class battle too and kick all poor people out on the street. (does that last argument seem unfair? Well, it seems unfair to me how people who believe in a fundemental right to human privacy could be labled monsters and murderers.) -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 2:56pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	An aborted fetus has not finished developing. Developing into what? No, but what I am saying, is that a FETUS is a just that, and it is the precursor to human life. A fetus is a pre-cursor to born human life. Please don't assume your standard and judge my arguments by it. You can't take a fetus out of a mother's body and give it proper nutrition and all the things it needs because it is impossible. To clear this up: You're saying that a fetus becomes human when it can survive without physical ties to its mother? (No, it's not a trick question ) In addition, don't forget that the Supreme Court viewed it as a privacy issue. The Supreme Court ruled that it was an individuals right to do what he willed with his body (or she). They also ruled, quite clearly, that this right was forfeit in the mother's case if a fetus was found to be a living human being. This definition was left to the individual discretion of the states. Since the Supreme Court doesn't like to get any fresh ideas, they base a lot of their decisions on precedent. For the abortion thing, they brought of the thoughts of a 2000 year-old Greek guy. A guy who just new EVERYTHING about human life. HA! -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 2/5/02 3:05pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	"Please don't assume your standard and judge my arguments by it" -AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Sorry. Sorry. It's just, can't you see, your quote to me is what I have been trying to get across to all of you for the last four posts! Anyway. Since no one has proven to the Supreme Court that a fetus is indeed a viable human life, isn't it your burden to prove it to us? Why should you accept our views anymore than we should accept yours? I don't know. Even though we reached stalemate long ago, I don't really know what to argue about anymore. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 3:13pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Sorry. Sorry. It's just, can't you see, your quote to me is what I have been trying to get across to all of you for the last four posts! Since no one has proven to the Supreme Court that a fetus is indeed a viable human life, isn't it your burden to prove it to us? See, they couldn't decide if it was or wasn't. So they left it to the discretion of the individual states. So if we're talking about individual states, then the burden of proof would be ours. But if we're talking in the broader sense, then nobody HAS to prove anything, because nobody knows anything BTW, I'd still like your definition of when a fetus becomes, in your opinion, a human being. Or when it SHOULD be considered a human being. -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 2/5/02 3:15pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	IF you can take the child out of the mother's womb and give it the proper nutrition, it's a human baby, that much is clear. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
StarFire Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 2/5/02 3:25pm Subject: RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
	IF you can take the child out of the mother's womb and give it the proper nutrition, it's a human baby, that much is clear. I could've done without the rhetoric, but just to clarify: A fetus becomes a human being, in your opinion, when it can be removed from its mother and survive if provided with proper nutrition? -----signature----- "Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »