Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » A wise man thus spake (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: A wise man thus spake
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pete, Humanity is individual humans, all individual humans."

I guess that would make every crime into a crime against humanity.

More seriously, this is a dangerous way to think. "Let's do what's best for Humanity!" has been the rallying cry of many an authoritarian. The USSR and the PRC set their policies along these beliefs. And they led to very bloody, rough, horrifying times.

Clearly, you can justify wiping out a bunch of Humanity for the greater good. But if your ethic is that of individual rights and freedom, you could never support such an action.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
It really does beg the question where the root came from for vegitarian. Shouldn't it be Herbivore?

Makes sense. So a humanitarian is really a humanivore.

Does vegetarian pizza have real vegetarians on it?


quote:
I'm not going to look it up, but I bet somebody blew it. I wonder if the Universal Ethic dictates that Meat is Murder?
Depends what Universe you're in at the time, I reckon. Word is, different Universes have different Universal Ethics.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lady S, The world may be getting better, but it is still far from perfect.
Exactly. But I'm not responsible for THE WORLD, just my world - the land I live on, the people I meet, and the reality I inhabit. It is not my job to fix your part of the world, whether you're my next-door neighbor or a dying child half a world away.

But making any small part of the world better betters the whole.

I do what I can, with what I have, where I am. I do not do things half a world away. I do not tell others that they should care for some nebulous "humanity", instead of the real people they meet on the streets.

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
WP, yes they could. Osama Bin Laden's do, for example. This is why we call him ethically wrong and immoral

Funny, I never took you for a relativist.

I don't know precisely which sentence you're responding to, but I'm not a relativist. I consider myself an amoralist (though Everard and others believe that being an amoralist is impossible, so we have a running debate).
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lady S. Humanity is not nebulous, it is as real as the people you meet on the street, becouse it is the people you meet on the street. It is also the people in Africa. It is all who exist, all who have existed and all who will exist.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Loki:
6 mil for a bomb is really ridiculous if you ask me. Sounds like price gouging, how much damage is that bomb gonna do? 6 million dollars worth, most of the time I doubt it. Waging a war in which the cost is more than the value is stupid...

Well, it all depends on where you drop it. Considering that a more expensive bomb may cost fewer lives the accounting is not only about dollar cost of weapon vs dollar cost of target.

Many might see the option of dropping one bomb into a city and hitting exactly what you want to be worth the cost, when the other option is leveling the entire city.

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WP, how can you be an amoral pro-lifer?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -

It's a really strange thing, isn't it?
It's mostly an argument about logical consistency and pointing out slippery slopes. You can fall down whatever slope you like.

My political position is, Roe is bad law and it should go to the states and I'll leave it to them to decide what a person is. I will accept the will of even my fellow California voters. I accept that in almost every state, voters would vote for radically more abortion procedures than I'm comfortable with. But it should go to the states anyway.

My more essential position (and the way I'd be voting) is, it's harder for me than for others to seperate one living distinct human from another. I haven't found a criteria I feel anywhere near comfortable with, because it's too easy to draw analogies to other people (slippery slopes here) who I think we wouldn't be best served by killing. I think, given a short period of time, other people could draw the same analogies, and say, "Hey, we've already justified this basic kind of killing. What's the real difference between this and that?"

Because abortion is justified many ways in our society. I've argued against myriad arguments from people who cannot be individually convinced to see it another way before we take action as a society. These people will take their justifications and apply them to similar situations, and they will be backed by precedent.

I don't like what I see as the consequences.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lady S. Humanity is not nebulous, it is as real as the people you meet on the street, becouse it is the people you meet on the street. It is also the people in Africa. It is all who exist, all who have existed and all who will exist.
Exactly. It is far too broad to be useless, because the humans I meet are far too different from each other to be treated as a lump sum.

People who throw about the word "humanity" in discussions of morality act as if the presence of humans in a particular location demands that I be interested in that location's seasonal weather patterns. It's also thrown about by people who don't want to spend the time cleaning up their own yard, or worse, think it's already clean, and want to seem grand and super-moral by demanding that aid be sent elsewhere.

There is too much to do right here, right now, in the places where we live, for the people we physically encounter, to worry about people elsewhere. There is no elsewhere. There is only where you are.

Maybe if we actually took care of ALL our own local problems FIRST, the world really would be a better place.

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course they are "different." We naturally define ourselves by our differences. But in doing so, we must not forget that we are more much more alike than we are different.

There is a huge argument for what you suggest. I have seen the glories of modern Greece, less hymned than those of the Ancient Greeks. In Greece there is little unemployment, not because of any government action, but because it would be a disgrace not to help your relatives. For this reason, also, they have less crime than almost any other nation I can think of.

If the world were thus run, then humanity would be well served.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How dare anyone accuse me of ignorance when they themselves are too cowardly— or too ignorant— to address any of the points that I have made.
I'd chime in, but what would be the point? By the way Warrsaw, for someone who isn't old enough to drink, you're a hell of a writer. You're one of the most cogent people on this board. Of course, you're using a gattling gun to kill a squirrel, but nevertheless, very well said.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By the way Warrsaw, for someone who isn't old enough to drink,
Too young to do so legally, yes... not that this inconvenient fact stops most of the people I know. That, and I'm too much of a self-control freak.

quote:
you're a hell of a writer. You're one of the most cogent people on this board.
Why, thank you!

quote:
Of course, you're using a gattling gun to kill a squirrel, but nevertheless, very well said.
Hehe.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The use of personal insults is a sign that one is too weak to think of anything of actual value. Most posters these days find it easier th say "Hehe, look at that person who thinks that ethics are not outdated, I am glad I am not so blind."
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right that personal insults are no substitute for an argument.

Then again, stringing together quotable quotes and asserting that your moral code is a universal one is not an argument at all. So what are we to do in response?

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't guess many people are going to be won over by "because that's the way I think things should be" but I do think we've all got, equal, inalienable rights, just by virtue of being human.

But, when you say:
"I am not equal to Alexander the Great simply because my genetic code places me in the same species as him."

It leads me to the pragmatic argument for equality of opportunity (yes, we could fight forever about what that would equal in the real world) is that we won't find out whether you or Alexander the Great is better at strategy, horseback riding or Aussie rules football, if you die of malnutrition at age 3, or prevented from riding a horse by your parent's poverty.

Of course, this leads me to think how many Hitlers intestinal parasites have saved the human race, or it would if I believed Hitler was hugely exceptional.

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, Pelegius, what makes you a poor debate-partner, other than your dogmatism and pathos-suffused self righteousness, is that you havethis tendency to spout "facts" that are...veracity-challenged, to put it mildly.

From the CIA's world factbook:

"public debt, inflation, and unemployment are also above the eurozone average." (emphasis mine). Further down the page we find:

quote:
Unemployment rate:
10% (2004 est.)

10% is pretty high.

As for the crime rate - I found this site.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gr/Crime

Greece appears to have a relatively low crime rate, but not breath-takingly so. It does have a very low murder rate, and my wife, who's been, says that she saw relatively few police on the streets and little signs of crime. Still, there are several countries in the EU itself that scorebetter in almost every category.

I might also add that Greek culture is far from the only one in which it would be considered shameful not to help one's realtives, and this includes some countries with appalling unemployment rates.

It is, off course, most gratifying to whip out statistics or other factoids that dramatically illustrate or bolster one's point, but the "exercise" is pointless if the facts don't hold up under the slightest scrutiny.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You forget that Greece is in South Eastern Europe, a region which never does as well as Western Europe, and still recovering from being under a dictatorship. Thus, in my mind, they are doing very well to be performing as well as they are.

But Hellas is not perfect, thus we must conclude that the family alone cannot solve the worlds problems, and therefore we create governments to help.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
Pete -

It's a really strange thing, isn't it?
It's mostly an argument about logical consistency and pointing out slippery slopes. You can fall down whatever slope you like.

My political position is, Roe is bad law and it should go to the states and I'll leave it to them to decide what a person is. I will accept the will of even my fellow California voters. I accept that in almost every state, voters would vote for radically more abortion procedures than I'm comfortable with. But it should go to the states anyway.

My more essential position (and the way I'd be voting) is, it's harder for me than for others to seperate one living distinct human from another. I haven't found a criteria I feel anywhere near comfortable with, because it's too easy to draw analogies to other people (slippery slopes here) who I think we wouldn't be best served by killing. I think, given a short period of time, other people could draw the same analogies, and say, "Hey, we've already justified this basic kind of killing. What's the real difference between this and that?"

Because abortion is justified many ways in our society. I've argued against myriad arguments from people who cannot be individually convinced to see it another way before we take action as a society. These people will take their justifications and apply them to similar situations, and they will be backed by precedent.

I don't like what I see as the consequences.

Ah, but there's the rub, WP.

My theory is that a woman's womb is outside the JURISDICTION of the law.

Once the law has jurisdiction, then the law is responsible for saying -- OK, you can kill when the woman's life is in danger, or when there's been a rape. THEN you run down that slippery slope, where the law says when it's OK to kill and not.

Under the Jurisdiction theory, the law can say, abortion is evil, bad, should be discouraged, but we have no jurisdiction. As if the act was performed in China. We can give women better alternatives, encourage responsibility, etc., but the state simply can't make choices for people like that.

Once birth begins, outside the womb, now the baby is in the jurisdiction of the law, and entitled to full protection. No slippery slope.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...and fully at odds with the reality that babies are perfectly capable of survival outside the womb, without assistance, at 37 weeks. The last three are mostly for fattening up. I'd say that, at very least, wherever a living human capable of homeostasis on its own exists, the law should have jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction argument happens to be a nice way of hand-waving away all the nasty realities of gradual growth into personhood. It's as bad as the "personhood from conception" argument in that respect. It's much worse in that it's more likely to kill innocent people.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pickled shuttlecock:
...and fully at odds with the reality that babies are perfectly capable of survival outside the womb, without assistance, at 37 weeks. The last three are mostly for fattening up. I'd say that, at very least, wherever a living human capable of homeostasis on its own exists, the law should have jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction argument happens to be a nice way of hand-waving away all the nasty realities of gradual growth into personhood. It's as bad as the "personhood from conception" argument in that respect. It's much worse in that it's more likely to kill innocent people.

How does it kill anyone?

The law doesn't kill. Prosecuting a woman for aborting does not bring a fetus back to life.

My theory saves lives, because while it tells the law that it can't stop early term abortion coercively, it *can* create policies that encourage alternatives, and that avoid the situation in the first place.

I don't deny that a fetus is a person. That gives the state interest in saving the child's life through programs, education, and other means that in the long run might save more fetuses than any criminal law.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to put some of the blame where some of it belongs: the Roman Catholic Church.

Will some one please explain the logic of a celibate, elderly man, telling women not to use birth control? Thus, the creation of unwanted babies. People who do not want children should never raise them, they are highly unlikely to be good parents.

I believe that a fœtus is a human being, but I honestly draw the line at giving that distinction to a sperm (or an egg for that matter.)

Condoms save more lives than they take, seeing as they don't take any lives but do in fact save them, both be slowing the spread of AIDS and other STDs, and by stopping abortions.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ah, but there's the rub, WP.

My theory is that a woman's womb is outside the JURISDICTION of the law.

Then why not the rest of her body?
Oh, and totally hypothetically -- what if a woman decided to smuggle drugs held in her uterus?

And where is the legal justification for this special treatment of one part of the body? (Don't say Roe v Wade)

quote:
Under the Jurisdiction theory, the law can say, abortion is evil, bad, should be discouraged, but we have no jurisdiction. As if the act was performed in China. We can give women better alternatives, encourage responsibility, etc., but the state simply can't make choices for people like that.
That state can and does make decisions for people based on whether or not they're harming other persons. Hell, we even have laws against hurting animals, even in the privacy of your home.

quote:
How does it kill anyone?

The law doesn't kill. Prosecuting a woman for aborting does not bring a fetus back to life.

Nor does prosecuting a murderer of born persons bring the victim(s) back to life. Yet we prosecute them anyway.

quote:
My theory saves lives
Stop right there. Preserving the right of one person to have an abortion without being prosecuted has the *possibility* of saving their life, but ensures the death of another living human without prosecution. So your theory enables people to take lives... so long as they do it in a particular location.

quote:
while it tells the law that it can't stop early term abortion coercively, it *can* create policies that encourage alternatives, and that avoid the situation in the first place.
I'm all for lowering the total number of abortions in a practical manner. I agree that going straight to prohibition is not the best way to prevent harm. But your theory alone does nothing to save the lives of those even you consider to be persons. Any person in the United States, even if he or she is not a citizen, is entitled to equal protection under state laws (according to the Fourteenth Amendment). That includes murder laws. It doesn't matter if you murder someone in the privacy of your own home -- if someone has reasonable cause to believe you committed a crime against another person, you can be searched (as can your property) and prosecuted.
-=-=-=-=-
Pelegius -
quote:
I would like to put some of the blame where some of it belongs: the Roman Catholic Church.
Gee, what a shock. Someone under the nom de plume of Pelegius attacks the (specifically) Roman Catholic Church.

quote:
Will some one please explain the logic of a celibate, elderly man, telling women not to use birth control?
That celibate, possibly elderly man happens to be someone who spent years studying the written Word of God and the doctrine of a religion that many of those women claim to believe in. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear, and widely published -- it's not like the priest came up with the Catholic aversion to birth control all by himself.

quote:
I believe that a fœtus is a human being, but I honestly draw the line at giving that distinction to a sperm (or an egg for that matter.)
I agree. So does the Catholic Church, for that matter.

quote:
Condoms save more lives than they take, seeing as they don't take any lives but do in fact save them, both be slowing the spread of AIDS and other STDs, and by stopping abortions.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the Church's problems with birth control. Here's a page that's a little more accessible, and even touches on your beloved Natural Law.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
quote:
Ah, but there's the rub, WP.

My theory is that a woman's womb is outside the JURISDICTION of the law.

Then why not the rest of her body?
Oh, and totally hypothetically -- what if a woman decided to smuggle drugs held in her uterus?

Same as if someone started forging US dollars on Chinese soil. There are actions that expand US jurisdiction outside the borders. A bag of drugs isn't the same as her natural born child.


quote:
And where is the legal justification for this special treatment of one part of the body? (Don't say Roe v Wade)
Fourth Amendment.


quote:
Under the Jurisdiction theory, the law can say, abortion is evil, bad, should be discouraged, but we have no jurisdiction. As if the act was performed in China. We can give women better alternatives, encourage responsibility, etc., but the state simply can't make choices for people like that.
-------
That state can and does make decisions for people based on whether or not they're harming other persons. Hell, we even have laws against hurting animals, even in the privacy of your home.

The laws and animals have passed through the state's jurisdiction. The fetus has not.

quote:
How does it kill anyone?

The law doesn't kill. Prosecuting a woman for aborting does not bring a fetus back to life.
-----
Nor does prosecuting a murderer of born persons bring the victim(s) back to life. Yet we prosecute them anyway.

And if we didn't prosecute them, it would still be innacurate to say that the law had killed them. Especially if the killing took place outside the jurisdiction.

quote:
My theory saves lives
----
Stop right there. Preserving the right of one person to have an abortion without being prosecuted has the *possibility* of saving their life, but ensures the death of another living human without prosecution.

No. It ensures the non-prosecution. It doesn't ensure the death.

quote:
So your theory enables people to take lives... so long as they do it in a particular location.
Nope. It doesn't enable them. It just doesn't forbid them.

quote:
while it tells the law that it can't stop early term abortion coercively, it *can* create policies that encourage alternatives, and that avoid the situation in the first place.
----
I'm all for lowering the total number of abortions in a practical manner. I agree that going straight to prohibition is not the best way to prevent harm. But your theory alone does nothing to save the lives of those even you consider to be persons.

YES IT DOES. Under Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion laws, the state is said to have NO interest in preventing abortion earlier than a certain point. Under that law, the state of Missouri was forbidden to even do an ad campaign to encourage people to "choose life" and avoid abortion. My theory says the government has a legitimate interest in the life of an unborn child, but simply lacks the right to prevent early term abortion through coercive means. THAT is a big change from the Roe and post-Roe doctrines, and allows the government to noncoercively teach a culture of life.


quote:
Any person in the United States, even if he or she is not a citizen, is entitled to equal protection under state laws (according to the Fourteenth Amendment). That includes murder laws. It doesn't matter if you murder someone in the privacy of your own home -- if someone has reasonable cause to believe you committed a crime against another person, you can be searched (as can your property) and prosecuted.

WRONG.

The clause you speak of actually forbids that we "deny [civil rights] to any person within its jurisdiction."

Roe v. Wade gets away with this by denying that a baby is a person.

I'm saying that it makes more sense, and results in less horror, if we look at the womb as beyond the state's jurisdiction.

[ November 04, 2005, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Same as if someone started forging US dollars on Chinese soil. There are actions that expand US jurisdiction outside the borders. A bag of drugs isn't the same as her natural born child.
You're right: a person is much more important than a bag of drugs.

quote:
And where is the legal justification for this special treatment of one part of the body? (Don't say Roe v Wade)

Fourth Amendment.

Not even close. Try again.

The Supreme Court had to build up a "right to privacy" before they could even *include* the Fourth Amendment as a justification for not having "compelling state interest" to protect persons... and even in that, they were limited, because they first had to deconstruct the unborn as persons (which they, by their own admission, were unable to do -- they could only throw doubt on it, using some very questionable reasoning like the beliefs/traditions of the ancient Greeks and Hebrews).

quote:
The laws and animals have passed through the state's jurisdiction. The fetus has not.
The Supreme Court disagrees; they held that any actual "person" has a right to protection, that they represented "compelling state interest."

Only by casting doubt on personhood could they skip to the "right to privacy" argument. So if you agree the unborn is a person, then the state is compelled to protect that person. It is not unreasonable to protect one person by restraining the action of another, even if such restraint must be harmful to the restrained.

quote:
And if we didn't prosecute them, it would still be innacurate to say that the law had killed them.
That's true enough. But your point about "bringing the victim back" is still invalid.

Failing to protect someone is not the same as killing them. But if that person is entitled to protection, then the state is failing in its duties under the contract we have that established it. By definition, the government loses a great degree of legitimacy (failing to protect millions of people under its protection).

quote:
But your theory alone does nothing to save the lives of those even you consider to be persons.

YES IT DOES. Under Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion laws, the state is said to have NO interest in preventing abortion earlier than a certain point.

Again, if you agree that the unborn is a person, then the state DOES have compelling state interest by their own rulings. Only by casting doubt on personhood did the state disavow compelling state interest.

From the Roe v Wade decision handed down:
quote:
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
If you agree that the unborn is a person, your argument about jurisdiction is completely invalid and has been so for some time. Your theory is not backed by any law I've heard of.

quote:
The clause you speak of actually forbids that we "deny [civil rights] to any person within its jurisdiction."
The text says:
"No state shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And according to the Supreme Court, that "jurisdiction" includes the uterus.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1