|
Grex > Agora46 > #172: Mississippi Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Law to Cover Unborn Fetuses | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 48 of 116:
|
Aug 25 18:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 116:
|
Aug 25 20:16 UTC 2003 |
I assume nothing about rights. There is a big difference between creating
"rights" based in logic and reason applied to the human condition, and
creating "rights" based on mythology and doctrines from the distant past.
At least one can find "rights" that might be applicable to human society
today.
|
tod
|
|
response 50 of 116:
|
Aug 25 20:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 51 of 116:
|
Aug 25 22:43 UTC 2003 |
Theology gets huge amounts of conjecture without any facts at all.
It even finds certainties (oddly, lots of contradictory ones).
|
sabre
|
|
response 52 of 116:
|
Aug 26 02:44 UTC 2003 |
I said
Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus"
is alive.
russ said
"So's an ant."
excellent..you admit the "fetus" is alive..therefore to abort it means
MURDER,
You also stated that the greek word for breath is "pneuma". True
While a baby doesn't "breath" in the classic sense it does require
oxygen for survival. It comes from the mother.
Let me quote some greek.
There are two main words for life in greek. One is bio. That applies to
the physical being(hence biology). The greek work zoa however is in a
diffrent context in the biblical sense. It means spiritual life and
that is something every "fetus" so called has. It is also what Adam
lost when he ate of the tree of life..not his "bio" life. In fact the
greek word for death is thanatos. It means "separation".
An FYI for the bonehead that thinks the bible is a myth. Was Plato a
myth? Was Socrates? Aristotle? How about Alexander the Great? There is
more historical documentation for the existance of Jesus Christ than
any of those figures. PROVE THAT WRONG. I would love a debate on that
subject.
I think that deep in the heart of every person lies(or once existed)
the knowledge that God exists. Some poeple harden there heart to the
point that they are reprobate. I hope you aren't at this point.
|
russ
|
|
response 53 of 116:
|
Aug 26 03:03 UTC 2003 |
Re #39:
The *sole* justification you've given for the morality of abortion is
that it is legal. Using that reasoning, before it was legal, it must
have been immoral because it was illegal. It was illegal because the
fetus was regarded as alive up to that point. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so. Before then, abortion was the exclusive province of doctors,
who decided if a hospital abortion under sterile conditions with good
followup was justified by a woman's condition or not. Marilyn Monroe
had a number of abortions. (While abortions were approved by a panel
of doctors based on the woman's physical and mental health, it should
not surprise anyone to learn that a woman's emotional state was more
significant if she or her family was important, whereas the poor folk
knew better than to bother asking; they went to back allies.) The
fetus didn't matter then either; it was merely a question of who
exercised control.
I give legalities as the reason why abortion cannot possibly be murder.
I give science as justification for asserting that any definition of
fetuses as a group as human beings flies in the face of reason. (Which
is not to say that government has not flouted reason for all kinds of
purposes, and continues to do so; just that it is wrong when doing so.)
|
scott
|
|
response 54 of 116:
|
Aug 26 12:40 UTC 2003 |
Re 52: Thanks for the half-assed lesson in Greek. Now could you please
actually connect it to your argument, or is it just meant to show you've
graduated from junior high school?
|
cyberpnk
|
|
response 55 of 116:
|
Aug 26 14:31 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, but shouldn't we take into
consideration whether or not the fetus can survive, independently of
the mother?
|
bru
|
|
response 56 of 116:
|
Aug 26 15:50 UTC 2003 |
Screw religion and screw Roe v. Wade
The decision on whether or not it is legal to kill a fetus stems from the
founding law of this country. We are garaunteed the "right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happines." Abortion is an attempt to facilitate the
pursuit of happiness of one person by denying all three to another.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it...
"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Whoever or
whatever the "CREATOR" is, the creator has given these rights to the
individual.
" Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." Abortion denies these rights
to an individual.
" it is the Right of the People to alter..." which is what we are seeking to
do by overturning Roe v. Wade.
|
scott
|
|
response 57 of 116:
|
Aug 26 16:58 UTC 2003 |
Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Should slavery therefore still
be legal, simply because it was part of the founding laws?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 116:
|
Aug 26 17:34 UTC 2003 |
Re #56: first, your quote is from the Declaration of Independemce, a
radical advocacy document, of the type in which exaggeration and fervor
would be expected. When the dust settled, they wrote the Constitution,
which sets down our governmental principles and practices. There is NO
blanket and without exception "founding law" of a right to "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution. What the Constitution
created were governmental bases for those aspirations, but there are
limitations. Many adult citizens of this country are deliberately denied
life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happisness, and I know bru supports
that.
The Constitution is written for "We the people...": that is, the sentient,
thinking and acting adult citizens. Particular provisions and subsequent
laws and regulations concern all others. An example was slaves, that were
not considered members of "We the people....". They have since been
included, but I doubt that fetuses ever will be, as they are incapable of
assuming the roles of full citizenship, nor would we want them to.
Bru promotes a narrow and simplistic interpretation of a generalized
notion that was used as an argument against tyranny. It was after that
that a nation was founded.
|
tod
|
|
response 59 of 116:
|
Aug 26 18:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 60 of 116:
|
Aug 27 03:05 UTC 2003 |
The stage blade (blunt as can be) wrote:
>excellent..you admit the "fetus" is alive..therefore to abort it means
>MURDER,
Really, but no. Put that mind to the grindstone for a while, and maybe
(just maybe) you'll get it sharp enough to cut butter. If it's warm.
Since you're so dense, an explanation is in order. "Life" means nothing.
A brain-dead body is also alive, has circulation and metabolism and all
the same signs and types of life as a fetus. Is it murder to shut off
the air keeping it alive? Hardly. Is it murder to cut one up into
component organs? No, it can be praiseworthy. Virtuous people volunteer
for the honor of donating their pieces.
Why's it not a problem then? It's because *nobody's there anymore*
once the brain is gone; you can't murder someone who's already dead.
By the same token, you can't kill a person who has yet to exist.
Vital signs are a prerequisite for personhood, not a synonym.
>You also stated that the greek word for breath is "pneuma". True
>While a baby doesn't "breath" in the classic sense it does require
>oxygen for survival. It comes from the mother.
Precisely. As long as it doesn't have breath of its own, it has no
soul of its own. No soul means it cannot be murdered. Ergo, per
the Bible you're so happy to quote, you're wrong. (If the Bible is
just myth you might have a chance to rescue your argument.)
|
russ
|
|
response 61 of 116:
|
Aug 27 03:05 UTC 2003 |
And Bruce said:
>We are garaunteed [sic] the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
>of happines. [sic]" Abortion is an attempt to facilitate the
>pursuit of happiness of one person by denying all three to another.
The flaw in your argument is that a person's life must first exist
before it can be denied. Note, the LIFE must BELONG TO A PERSON,
not to a senseless, mindless something.
Bruce, you and Twila only had two children. Why? You probably could
have half a dozen, maybe more. You denied all those lives you could
have made! But when you refused to turn as many gametes as you could
into babies, did you *murder* them? Is every condom user a baby-killer?
No. Refusing to exercise a potential is not destruction. There is
no equivalence between them morally, logically or any other way.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
You're quoting a polemic. Here's the fundamental document of our nation:
"No Person except a natural BORN Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." (Article
II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. Emphasis added.)
"All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." (Section 1,
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Emphasis
added.)
Those are the only two places where the word "born" appears. Looks like
you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on; it's truly a pity that
you didn't bother to read the thing first.
>" it is the Right of the People to alter..." which is what we are seeking to
>do by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Quite the reverse. You've already done enough damage to the legitimacy
of our government with your anti-abortion meddling. If you arrogate any
more power over people's intimate lives, we'll have to throw the whole
mess out (and you with it). Maybe we can keep "Congress shall make no law".
|
sabre
|
|
response 62 of 116:
|
Aug 27 22:30 UTC 2003 |
RE# 54
Here's another "half assed lesson".
russ assumed that the gen. verse meant that you don't have life until
you breath(pneuma). The verse actually means that he was given
a "spirit". In 90% of the places pneuma is used in scripture you can
substitute the word "spirit"
I think that shatters the use of this verse for using breathing as the
starting point for the begining of life.
as for #59
I like jep's point. The right of the "fetus" (as you call it)was taken
away by roe v wade.
#re 61
Quite the opposite...it is your baby killing legislature that has done
this country damage.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 116:
|
Aug 28 00:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 64 of 116:
|
Aug 28 03:16 UTC 2003 |
The stage blade wrote:
>The verse actually means that he was given a "spirit". In 90% of the
>places pneuma is used in scripture you can substitute the word "spirit"
And in most of the places you write liquor you can substitute the
word "spirits". You keep avoiding the issue: if the two were not
synonymous to the apostles, why'd they use the same word? (Heck,
in the KJV "knowledge" means screwing. I think I "know" your mind...)
>Quite the opposite...it is your baby killing legislature that has done
>this country damage.
The change was wrought by the judiciary; the federal legislature is
reactionary, trying to return to the status quo ante. And thanks for
proving my point about your intellect or lack thereof.
|
lynne
|
|
response 65 of 116:
|
Aug 28 18:07 UTC 2003 |
Heh. I like that. It's illegal to kill a fetus as soon as it's
intoxicated. :)
|
sabre
|
|
response 66 of 116:
|
Aug 28 19:37 UTC 2003 |
russ...I will end this absurd notion of yours with one statement
The Holy Spirit is called the "pneumas"
Do you think that means Holy "breath"?
The action that God took in creating Adam was imparting the "spirit of
life"
You are mislead by the english translation. THAT IS THE POINT.
You cannot use that verse to justify your position on when life begins.
THAT IS THE POINT
"And thanks for
proving my point about your intellect or lack thereof."
WHAT...can't you even READ? You are in dire need of knowledge.
|
tod
|
|
response 67 of 116:
|
Aug 28 19:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 68 of 116:
|
Aug 28 20:05 UTC 2003 |
Back in the 50's, my mom had a pregnancy that ending with
a stillborn. Never took a breath. Never named, No funeral, no
burial, no Catholic ceremony. Just one that did not make it.
I think the attitude of the church has changed.
|
sabre
|
|
response 69 of 116:
|
Aug 28 20:06 UTC 2003 |
RE#67
wayipach baapaayw nishmat chayiym wayhiy haa'aadaam inepesh chayaah
(Hebrew characters are transliterated in english)
I'm sure one of the great minds here will verify this.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 70 of 116:
|
Aug 28 20:32 UTC 2003 |
Stop speaking that language.
|
lynne
|
|
response 71 of 116:
|
Aug 28 22:26 UTC 2003 |
My rum is holy and is referred to as such.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 72 of 116:
|
Aug 28 22:45 UTC 2003 |
Yeah.
|