|
Grex > Agora46 > #172: Mississippi Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Law to Cover Unborn Fetuses | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 73 of 116:
|
Aug 28 23:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
pvn
|
|
response 74 of 116:
|
Aug 30 07:39 UTC 2003 |
"We the People" would have been understood to be in the context of
"Endowed by Creator" in the first place and not at all separate from it.
How do those who oppose tacking extra penalty on crimes that result in
the death of a fetus feel about "hate crimes" which tack on extra
penalty for crimes involving those victims deemed worthy of such?
|
tod
|
|
response 75 of 116:
|
Aug 30 20:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 76 of 116:
|
Aug 30 20:55 UTC 2003 |
It always seemed like shooting oneself in the foot to me: murder for
so-called murder, if that was the rationale.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 116:
|
Aug 31 14:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 78 of 116:
|
Aug 31 22:52 UTC 2003 |
And yet such an ironic comparison: these are the nuts that pretty much
think that those 'towel-heads' should convert to Jeez-us or die.
(Sorry, I couldn't hold back the disdain there.)
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 116:
|
Aug 31 23:07 UTC 2003 |
I'm not big on hate-crime laws, either.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 80 of 116:
|
Sep 1 01:19 UTC 2003 |
re77: by giving them something to live for.
like a bigmac 'n fries!
|
russ
|
|
response 81 of 116:
|
Sep 1 14:22 UTC 2003 |
I believe I'm on record as opposing hate-crime laws; if there
is no separate crime of conspiracy, a given crime ought to be
punished the same.
|
bru
|
|
response 82 of 116:
|
Sep 2 16:36 UTC 2003 |
I agree. I even think it is wrong to offer more severe sentences to those
who kill police. In my opinion, police are no more important than anyone
else. Our job isn't even more dangerous than some others out there.
And you generally have to hate someone to murder them.
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 116:
|
Sep 2 16:51 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 84 of 116:
|
Sep 2 19:36 UTC 2003 |
most officers never have to drawa gun and shoot in the line of duty. Most
psychological damage to officers comes from having to deal with the after
effects of a crime on the survivors. alcoholism only exacerbates the problem.
Stress is not what we are dealing with here. WE are dealiing with the value
of a human life. No life is more omportant than any other life, adn the
punishment should be the same under the same circumstances.
|