|
Grex > Agora46 > #172: Mississippi Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Law to Cover Unborn Fetuses | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 11 of 116:
| 
Aug 22 22:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 12 of 116:
|
Aug 23 01:16 UTC 2003 |
*yawn* could you see the strings on the bush puppet being
tugged by cheney?
|
sabre
|
|
response 13 of 116:
|
Aug 23 11:18 UTC 2003 |
A child is an "unfinished" human being also klg.
Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus"
is alive.
Show me a scripture where it is stated that life begins when the
first breath is taken. The only verse that even deals with this issue
is.
Ex 21:22
22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely
punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he
shall pay as the judges determine".
KJV
This verse in no way justifies calling a "fetus" a piece of tissue.
Can you point to another one?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 14 of 116:
|
Aug 23 12:47 UTC 2003 |
Genesis 2:7 says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"
(KJV).
|
tod
|
|
response 15 of 116:
|
Aug 23 13:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sabre
|
|
response 16 of 116:
|
Aug 23 17:11 UTC 2003 |
What do any of your refrences have to do with the price of tea in China?
Your analogies are weak and your refrences are inaccurate. Post me a
verse SALIENT with the issue. I have read the entire bible many times.
I have found one verse that deals with an unborn baby. I have posted
it. You have said in prior posts that a baby doesn't have life until it
was BORN. gelinas posted gen 2:7 and you agreed that is pretty much
what you were talking about. That verse fortifies my position and not
yours. Adam was never BORN. This makes him a non-person by your
definition. He was created. The verse merely descibes the finishing
touch. Adam was never in the womb.You cannot compare his creation to an
unborn baby.As for the tree of life...well Adam never tasted it. He and
Eve chose the tree of knowledge and were cast out of the garden BEFORE
they had a chance to taste the tree of life.
|
darrius
|
|
response 17 of 116:
|
Aug 23 18:07 UTC 2003 |
I don't understand why this is here?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 18 of 116:
|
Aug 23 19:16 UTC 2003 |
re16:
pRoVE iT.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 116:
|
Aug 23 20:47 UTC 2003 |
Re #16: "Adam", "eve", the "tree of life" are all myths and have no more
to do with anything than Mickey Mouse does. Why do people insist on
talking myths when we are trying to deal with reality?
This is entirely a matter of current law, where reason should rule.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 20 of 116:
|
Aug 23 22:05 UTC 2003 |
Rane, your conclusion is incorrect: myths have a great deal to do with every
day life. We _know_ you wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. *LISTEN* to
what people say, and you will realise that these things are quite important
and very relevant to understanding their views and intentions.
Bluntly, perhaps Reason SHOULD rule, but it does NOT. (And yes, 'tis often
a pity that it does not.)
|
pvn
|
|
response 21 of 116:
|
Aug 23 22:37 UTC 2003 |
So ex21:22 provides bibilical backing for Mississippi law. Thats nice,
but not necessary.
Mississippi law should have covered it in the first place as clearly
there is a social wrong in the killing of a child even unborn that the
law ought to have covered. Note: I don't mean this as an attack on
R-v-W as that is clearly a different issue entirely - those who would
combine the two are in my opinion....well, you can guess my opinion.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 116:
|
Aug 24 00:08 UTC 2003 |
Re #20: as I said, if taken in reverse, Mickey Mouse has as much to do
with "anything" as do biblical myths. That is far from asserting that
myths don't have "a great deal to do with every day life". They do,
because some people think there myths should be adopted as reality by
others. But I do insist that we *shouldn't* be talking myths when dealing
with reality.
Re #21: "clearly" my foot: there is no social wrong in killing a fetus, as
permitted by national law. Therefore Mississippi *shouldn't* have a law
that is more restrictive since, as stated by the Mississippi Attorney
General, Mississippi will not try to act "above the law".
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 23 of 116:
|
Aug 24 01:26 UTC 2003 |
It's easy to set things up so it's illegal to kill a fetus by assaulting
the mother, but still perfectly legal to get an abortion. There are a lot
of things that are legal if one person does them (or orders them done) but
illegal if anyone else does.
|
pvn
|
|
response 24 of 116:
|
Aug 24 02:25 UTC 2003 |
Rcurl seems to be the type of right-winger that I really detest - a
parasite hiding in benign clothing. (Bet he never actually worked for a
living...) Rcurl, I bet you didn't know that the US Constitution was
specifically structured so the state of Mississippi might have a more
provicial view of things than a federal government.
It may not be "above" federal law, but in the original intent of the
Constitution it sure might be different than any other state which is
its right.
|
gull
|
|
response 25 of 116:
|
Aug 24 02:56 UTC 2003 |
Re #7: She was probably encouraged to make it this kind of issue by
activists.
Re #23: That may be true, but many groups have openly admitted they're
seeking laws like this as a way to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.
Re #24: Funny how conservatives love to argue for states rights in
cases like this, but they ignore that argument when a state wants to
legalize a controlled substance, or legalize assisted suicide.
|
pvn
|
|
response 26 of 116:
|
Aug 24 03:29 UTC 2003 |
Funny how liberals call for states rights except when it comes to carry
laws or owning "assault weapons".
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 116:
|
Aug 24 03:33 UTC 2003 |
Yes, but at least they aren't part of a party that claims to stand up
for states' rights.
|
pvn
|
|
response 28 of 116:
|
Aug 24 03:41 UTC 2003 |
re#27: Its hard to tell if you are accusing or lauding.
|
jep
|
|
response 29 of 116:
|
Aug 24 03:43 UTC 2003 |
Rane's rule that "there is no social wrong in killing a fetus, as
permitted by national law." is a bit frightening. By a similar rule,
slavery was not socially wrong. Hey, it was legal!
|
pvn
|
|
response 30 of 116:
|
Aug 24 04:37 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. I shudder to think voting citizens hold such views. One hopes
rcurl finds better things to do than vote...
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 31 of 116:
|
Aug 24 05:26 UTC 2003 |
You know, this debate is such a dead horse beat much too often. Or
perhaps the debate vultures have yet a bone to pick? Egads, to twist
such trite phrases to make a point here...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 116:
|
Aug 24 06:24 UTC 2003 |
I never fail to vote.
Slavery was legal and became illegal as we matured socially. Abortion was
illegal and became legal as we matured socially. Things change.
|
jep
|
|
response 33 of 116:
|
Aug 24 12:28 UTC 2003 |
re resp:32: Do all of the changes which have occurred in the nation's
history come from societal maturity?
I'm more inclined to think of such things as centralization of wealth,
or higher taxation accompanied by more laws and government actions, as
being from national maturity. The legalization of abortion is more in
line with the trend toward greater insistence on personal rights, and
less observation of personal responsibility.
In any regard, causing the death of a fetus against the wishes of it's
parents is causing the parents a loss. I don't see it ever being
regarded as murder in our current society, but surely it wouldn't be
too far out of line to regard it like causing the death of a pet.
|
tod
|
|
response 34 of 116:
|
Aug 24 13:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 35 of 116:
|
Aug 24 15:59 UTC 2003 |
In a fit of self-righteousness, sabre wrote:
>Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus"
>is alive.
So's an ant.
>Show me a scripture where it is stated that life begins when the
>first breath is taken.
It's in the very language. For instance, the Greek word for "soul"
is pneuma. This is also the word for "breath"; if there was a
difference you would have expected all the apostles and later
translators to have and use a different word. As long as you're
arguing scripture rather than evidence, what more do you need?
> The only verse that even deals with this issue
> is.
> Ex 21:22
> 22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
> depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely
> punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he
> shall pay as the judges determine".
> KJV
Right. Cause a miscarriage (kill a fetus), pay a fine. (Serious
premies died in those days.)
> This verse in no way justifies calling a "fetus" a piece of tissue.
Quite the opposite, it demands it. If you kill a person (even a
child), the law you cite has a very different punishment. Anyone
reading this has to conclude that a fetus is not a person.
Note also that the penalty is paid *to the husband*. In other words
the fetus is HIS property, presumably to be disposed of as he sees
fit. According to this interpretation of the Old Testament a man
ought to be able to demand a fine of a woman who aborts his fetus,
or perhaps even require her to abort (if it's HIS property, he can
tell her what to do with it).
> Can you point to another one?
If that's the only one you can find, your position is in deep trouble.
|