There Is No Right To Life In The Declaration Of Independence

@Bluesguy

Regarding this matter of abortion and the Ninth Amendment, it seems you are somehow conflating science with religious dogma. That is a fallacy.

 

I'm an atheist what are you talking about, my position on abortion is based on science, biology and embryology as I have cited the textbooks and journals. It has nothing to do with a religious faith. There is nothing about a right for a mother to kill her unborn baby because she does not want it to be born anywhere in the Ninth Amendment or Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The RIGHT to life is the only mention of life in all those documents. That that right can only be taken away for the committing of and trial and conviction with all due process for a capital crime or treason. That's the only think I see in all those documents about kill another human being.

 

Please point out where the ZEF has the right to inhabit a woman's body when she does not want it there.

 

Coulda fooled me! Your posts sound very much like religious dogma, in that you don't perceive (seemingly) the many shades of gray we see in situations in life. You offer black or white, nothing between.

How does "science" find this great moral lesson you deliver?

From the biological perspective, life either succeeds or not, and the natural, scientific, biological result of life is eventually death. Aside from charlatans like Fauci, I don't recall a scientist being as judgmental as you are on this topic.

 

NOTHING in my post have indicated, implied or cited religious faith my positions have been ENTIRE focused on the science and our founding principles. Don't know why you are trying to inject Fauci into this I have never heard his position on abortion.

Now we can continue based on the science and our inherent rights the attempt to turn it into a religious debate notwithstanding.

 

I have repeatedly, it's right to life. Please point to me the right for the mother to kill her baby when it is not threatening her life.

 

Sorry but right to life does not include the means to sustain that life.

 

It means right to their life and if a mother refuses to sustain her baby andn if dies she can be charged with a crime.

 

Slavery is illegal.

 

Back in the good old days, science concerned itself with observable and provable facts. That is, it did not concern itself with matters of morality.

Philosophers and the like concerned themselves with ethics and morality, discussing differences between right and wrong.

So I find your claim, implied or directly stated, that the science finds that abortion is immoral to be sophistry. Your claim reminds me somehow of Fauci's sophistic claim that HE is science.

There is nothing wrong with scientists like yourself having ethics, knowing the difference between right and wrong. Indeed such a situation is desirable. But claiming that science deals with or otherwise discovers right and wrong is nonsense. Sadly, as Fauci and his coconspirators have shown, today's "scientists" are the perverted "mad scientists" portrayed in comic books. Sorry dude.

Philosophers have found years ago that individuals have rights to their bodies. No church and no government can claim they own the individual, unless, of course, that person signs a contract to join the military or an equivalent organization.

 

It still does, the observable, repeatable, demonstrable facts.

It doesn't here but our founding documents do/.

Yes our founding documents based on those phili=osophers and the like concerns itself with ethics and morality, discussing differences between right and wrong. It clearly states it is wrong to take an innocent human life merely for the sake of convenience.

The morality is based on the science not the other way around. Don't you think our founding principles and morality should be based on the science though and not baseless false assertions about such important matters such as our inherent rights with which we are created?

Oh I don't claim to be a scientist biology was my major but I did not earn a degree in that subject in the end.

Yes we have rights to our bodies and those rights begin at our creation and cannot be denied simply because someone else doesn't want us to continue our lives.

 

OK this is not slavery your desperation is showing now.

 

So she's not being forced to care for the ZEF, she can have it removed from her body?

 

Thank you. Since when has science/biology been involved in legal matters?

Once again you're attempting to put a square peg in a round hole. Not persuasive in the least. FYI attempting to defend the indefensible never works.

 

Since when hasn't it? Once again I have given you rational, logical, cited response with which you cannot deal on the same level. I am not the one engaged in a defense here.

 

You've offered sophistry, claiming that your experience in biology, or that the science of biology, is somehow related to the law and to morality.

As I've already said, I am always happy to see ethical men in science including biology, but I can only laugh at the claim that because of training and knowledge in biology one is an expert in law and morality. Sorry mate.

 

That's not slavery stop with the desperate canard.