Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 2, 2021.
What are you "killing" when you remove a wart or a tumor?
You haven't refuted a single thing. You've just said all his arguments are specious without one word as to how.
So what? And no the baby in the womb, the human being in the womb is never a "part" of the mother, they are totally separate human beings the purpose of the placenta is to keep them separate else the mothers immune system would kill the baby. The unborn baby has a totally difference genetic makeup, can even be a different sex, can have a different blood type. Place does not equal part.
A human life is a human life. The DOI doesn't say rights after you are born, that is where our fundamental inherent rights are declared. The Constitution does not say a mother can kill her baby simply because she does not want to be pregnant either.
It's not a canine being that is killed in an abortion, what are you claiming give me the genus and species.
It kills a human fetus.... a human (adjective) fetus is NOT A human (noun) being as in legal person...
Republicans have now come to terms the fact that, the only way to make any argument for their losing positions is to deny reality. So they deny that there is a Preamble in the Constitution. In fact, they deny EVERYTHING in the Constitution, unless they can cherry-pick it to serve their politics of the day. But they will quickly discard it the minute it doesn't.
Your OP provides further evidence of this.
Do you believe women have a right to defend themselves?
The KEY salient point, our highest right is our right to life and under our laws you cannot take another human being's life unless that other human being is threatening you with IMMINENT death or serious bodily harm.
Why is it ILLEGAL?
But the Constitution DOES say that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED to deny or disparage others retained by the people". In those days, women were rather seen as an inferior species, but still....
Everyone has a right to defend themselves.
What does a person's sex have to do with their inherent natural rights?
So no self defense.
No it doesn't, half from mom half from dad.
FoxHastings said: ↑
Do you believe women have a right to defend themselves?
NOTHING, that's why women also get to defend themselves from harm....
Which make up a TOTALLY difference genome. Do you have any concept of how it works?
And what is the bar for using lethal force to defend yourself? IMMINENT threat of life or SERIOUS bodily harm.
What is the bar for using lethal force to defend yourself from another human being?
YES which the one of the crutches of the hearing before the SCOTUS, the abortions issue is retained by the people in their respective states, THEY should decide not the SCOTUS not the federal government. Do you agree it is a states rights issue.
A human fetus is a human being. It's not a vegetable or a mineral or some other species of animal, and it will remain a being as long as it lives.
This is bordering on the intellectually inane. Constitutional liberty does not mean that every person is free to do anything they want. I can't murder another person. I can't rob a bank. I can't fail to serve in the military if called. I can't drive my car faster than 55MPH on 290. I can't etc, etc, etc, etc. None of this has anything to do with the natural God-given "liberty" of individuals as in the Constitution and the Declaration. The Declaration explains the principles and the Constitution establishes a government designed to protect these natural rights, ala liberty. One cannot have such a government if the society is not virtuous and therefore not civil. You are describing an ethereal abstract concept of liberty. The Constitution establishes very real, practical, down to earth governmental protection of liberty.
I already said that.
popscott:Killing a human being is not in the constitution.
Ad hominems, loaded phrases, weasel words, vacuous allegations, cheap shots, etc., such as you pepper your argument with, are all debate defects, or debate sins as I prefer to call them, all of which are the province of those who are either novices, or those with weak debate skills, or both.
A debatable premise is an assumed premise.
My rebuttal stands as it has merit.
Of course I had to repeat the charge, you repeated your defects.
The appellate courts have recently put a pause on Biden's mandates, but they have yet to rule on the constitutionality of them. However, in reading their opinion, it appears to be more of an objection with the broad 'one-size-fits-all' aspect of the mandates, not the constitutionality of a mandate, per se. My view is that Biden can get around this issue with the courts by tailoring each mandate to their respective industries, and, until his mandates are ruled unconstitutional, my rebuttal stands, in toto.
I should have put an asterisk in the title, as it was a provocative title, but I qualified what I meant by it in the OP.
It wasn't meant to be literal. I think most who responded here understood this.
My only mistake was the absence of an asterisk.
the OP stands.
But, of course, you think I'm so stupid I would mean it literally.
Thanks for the insult.
I don't think we need to elevate this particular debate sufficient to bring in philosophers like Locke, Kant, etc.
Let's keep it local:
So, let's say a city creates a law that handguns are illegal, and you are not allowed to own them.
The police learns that you have a cache of such guns and ammo, and sends a swat team to raid your home.
What is your response?
If you fight with guns, if you survive the episode, you will be prosecuted and put in jail, even you sue later and get the law repealed.
You still took the law in your own hands, and by that measure, you will be convicted.
That what I mean, the proper course in the above scenario is to sue.
That lawsuit resulted in the Heller decision.
That what I mean you need a government (via the courts) to back up your right, as was the case in Heller.
Separate names with a comma.