|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 32 of 254:
| 
Mar 7 18:51 UTC 2006 |
If the state forcibly impregnates a woman OR forcibly prevents a woman from
becoming not pregnant, in both cases represent a woman being made "not secure
in her person" and would be a violation of the woman's constitutional rights
|
jep
|
|
response 33 of 254:
|
Mar 7 18:56 UTC 2006 |
re resp:18: I don't favor exceptions for rape or incest. I don't think
it is right to give the fetus the death penalty because of who his
parents are or what they did.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
---
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
---
I don't think a pregnancy is an "unreasonable search or seizure",
regardless of whether the baby is wanted or not wanted.
I share resp:27's enthusiasm for another abortion item. We mustn't
take the chance that any of us has anything to say on the subject which
we haven't said in the other 20 abortion items.
|
edina
|
|
response 34 of 254:
|
Mar 7 18:57 UTC 2006 |
Oh, I've totally changed my mind on abortion since last week. haven't you?
|
jep
|
|
response 35 of 254:
|
Mar 7 18:59 UTC 2006 |
Yeah.
Twice.
|
edina
|
|
response 36 of 254:
|
Mar 7 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Really? Me too!!!!
|
scholar
|
|
response 37 of 254:
|
Mar 7 19:12 UTC 2006 |
Re. 29: Are you an idiot? Nature does plenty of things people shouldn't do.
I think abortions should be allowed (though I'm personally EXTREMELY
uncomfortable with them), but it has nothing to do with you making silly
posts.
Try to think through your arguments before you make them. Otherwise you just
embarrass yourself.
|
richard
|
|
response 38 of 254:
|
Mar 7 21:08 UTC 2006 |
re #33 again jep, do you think we ONLY have the right to be secure in our
persons against unreasonable search and seizure and nothing else? I submit
that most people have a much broader interpretation, since this is a free
country.
|
richard
|
|
response 39 of 254:
|
Mar 7 21:13 UTC 2006 |
in fact, contary to jep evidently, I think we have the right to be secure in
our persons regardless of whether we are being robbed or not.
|
cross
|
|
response 40 of 254:
|
Mar 7 21:29 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 254:
|
Mar 7 21:33 UTC 2006 |
#40, I was saying we have a right to be secure NOT ONLY when we are getting
robbed, but also during the course of our regular lives as citizens. A
criminal act need not kick in to be able to assert our right to be secur ein
our persons
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 254:
|
Mar 7 22:09 UTC 2006 |
Here is a list of countries that Prohibited Altogether or Permitted Only to
Save the Woman's Life.
Afghanistan
Andorra
Angola
Antigua & Barbuda
Bangladesh
Bhutan.U
Brazil.R
Brunei Darussalam
Central African Rep.
Chile.x
Colombia
Congo (Brazzaville)
Cte d.Ivoire
Dem. Rep. of Congo
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador.x
Gabon
Guatemala
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Iran Iraq
Ireland
Kenya
Kiribati
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya.PA
Madagascar
Malawi.SA
Mali-R/I
Malta
Marshall Islands.U
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico◊- R
Micronesia.U
Monaco
Myanmar
Nicaragua.SA/PA
Niger
Nigeria
Oman
Palau-U
Panama.PA/R/F Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
San Marino
Sao Tome & Principe
Senegal
Soloman Islands
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan.R
Suriname
Swaziland
Syria.SA/PA
Tanzania
Togo
Tonga
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Arab
Emirates.SA/PA
Venezuela
West Ban & Gaza Strip
Yemen
Do we want our country to be anything like these countries? I don't.
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 254:
|
Mar 7 22:13 UTC 2006 |
many of those countries are fundamentalist islamic nations where women are
treated as property of the men. why would saudi arabia allow abortions when
they don't allow women to vote, or get divorces or even DRIVE?
|
scholar
|
|
response 44 of 254:
|
Mar 7 22:16 UTC 2006 |
Re. 40: No, but I heard of your mother sucking off a boatload of gay sailors.
|
keesan
|
|
response 45 of 254:
|
Mar 7 23:07 UTC 2006 |
Many of them are not Muslim but Catholic.
|
cross
|
|
response 46 of 254:
|
Mar 7 23:10 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 47 of 254:
|
Mar 7 23:37 UTC 2006 |
lol!
|
scholar
|
|
response 48 of 254:
|
Mar 7 23:40 UTC 2006 |
Re. 46: Then you haven't seen her clitoris.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 49 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:30 UTC 2006 |
So, a serious question for those asserting the "life begins at
conception" argument: Does that mean that you view the just-fertilized
egg (and onward) as an honest-to-goodness human being, same as you and I
and George Clooney, or is it meant as something more general, such as
human life with the potential to be a full-fledged human being (and
therefore just as deserving of protection, etc.)?
|
tod
|
|
response 50 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:36 UTC 2006 |
Is there a market for lil caskets when there is a 1st trimester miscarriage
amongst the Jesus freaks?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 51 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:42 UTC 2006 |
The scenario getting play in the blog world is the "burning building"
scenario: you're in a room of a burning building with a 2-year-old
toddler and a container which holds 5 human blastulas. You can only
carry one of them. Which one do you save?
(Since I know grexers are too lazy to use google, I'll mention that a
blastula is an early stage of embryonic development which has on the
order of 128 undifferentiated cells.)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 52 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:45 UTC 2006 |
I'd probably save the toddler, since he or she would be the one brought most to
my attention, but I don't say that my answer is morally correct.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 53 of 254:
|
Mar 8 00:54 UTC 2006 |
Fair enough. So far I have never heard anyone say he would save the embryos;
they all either pick the todder or refuse to answer.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:01 UTC 2006 |
Blastulas - and embryos - are hardly "persons". When an ovum is fertilized
it becomes in effect the blueprint for a person. Eventually a structure is
made from the blueprint, which becomes a person. I see no loss in losing a
blueprint when they are easily available. Others must judge it this way too,
if they choose to save the toddler rather than the blastulas.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 55 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:02 UTC 2006 |
However, that reminds me of a sequence in a novel by Lois McMaster Bujold
called _Barrayar_ in which the main character goes (without permission) into
enemy territory with a few friends to save her son, who is in a "uterine
replicator," and ends up having the enemy commander beheaded.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 56 of 254:
|
Mar 8 01:05 UTC 2006 |
Curl slipped. Re his point: The life-begins-at-conception viewpoint says that a
fertilized egg is a person. Besides, as I understand it, some religions (at
least Judaism but perhaps others) don't consider children to be full persons
until they have attained a certain age. (What I'm thinking of in Judaism is
that children don't take responsibility for keeping the Law until their bar or
bat mitzvah, at age 13 IIRC.)
|