Search:

i cannot keep up with this thread. there are several posts to which i would like to reply, but i do not have the time or energy. spinoza continues to miss the point in his continued attempt to...

citizenship is not what gives someone the right to life. can you imagine if the "minutemen" started shooting every illegal they saw crossing the border, just because they are not citizens and are...

i agree, but it is the constitution that they wrote that the supreme court is sworn to uphold. if you don't like some of their ideas, ammend the constitution -- don't misuse the power of the...

let me also add that i don't assume they thought these rights were afforded the unborn. they did not have the scientific knowledge then that we have today. back then it was common thought that a...

i figured this would come up. it's the low fruit, but it does nothing to significantly challenge the argument. the founders most certainly DID extend the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of...

did i miss something?

did you argue the merits of such a component? or did you just want someone to pick it up and run with it so that you could criticize their wording or question their motives?

try to put down the beer for a second and follow my reiterated logic. the court stated, essentially, "it is not for us to decide when life begins." this is obvious. they made a good case for this...

one more item of clarification before i hit the sack, since spinoza seems to think it is presumptuous of me to question a judgment of the supreme court.

i am obviously far from qualified to judge...

i have only voiced my opinion and tried to convince others of its validity. my point on the supreme court decision is that this was not for them to decide. it is not as if i am the only person with...

:thumbsup: :icon_razz:

ag, i agree that clinics like these are the absolute best combat against abortion as long as it is legal. they are also the absolute best thing for a mother that is considering abortion, because she...

wise enough to recognize their limitations, and arrogant enough to overstep them.

as for the founders, would you like to venture an argument that the founders held to anything less than sanctity...

what have i said that would lead you to believe that i think i know with all certainty when life begins? i have only stated reasons to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt.

also, based on...

so do you think there has been any group of supreme court justices serving at the same time in the history of our country that would have upheld such a law?

you're choosing to pick at pieces of my argument rather than defend your rediculous analogy. i don't blame you.

and if your religion involved human sacrifices, etc, etc.

i'm sorry, i should have been more specific (no, actually it should not have been necessary). you would have to include judicial interpretations of that ammendment, just as i did in the abortion...

exactly. the rights of the woman are irrelevent.

as for the silly comparison of this bill to making chruchgoers read the koran (i don't want to go back 15 pages trying to find the post to quote):

the majority decides what is legal and what is...

once again, people are discussing patriachy and womens rights. i will say this one more time:

NO RIGHT GIVEN TO ANY WOMAN OR MAN IN THIS COUNTRY ALLOWS THAT PERSON TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN...

that is my point exactly.

you got me. i was just speaking for myself. please adjust my statement to read "i" instead of "nobody." i'm so embarassed. :o :icon_roll:



i explained why it was a cop-out. perhaps you...

it seems we have deviated again from any useful debate, so i will bring my first post on this thread back to the top.

if a fetus is a person worthy of human rights, then anyone who believes in...

ok, spinoza. here you go.....

the reason nobody has replied to the supreme court argument is because it is a weak and pathetic cop-out. they dodged the question of "when life begins," but went...

guisslapp, could you describe what is meant by "faculty of reason"?