Social Conservatives: Just a few questions

[CaptainGoodnight]

And who pays the price for your fantasy?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The duty of the judicial branch includes: Interpreting our laws, deciding how our laws apply in specific cases and determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. Anyone who misinterprets these acts as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," as generally decried by social conservatives when their social conservative views aren't upheld by the courts, simply doesn't understand the duties of the judicial branch. Checks and balances people, checks and balances.

Well said. :beer:

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government and has an important role in the checks and balances system. There is a reason why the US Supreme Court is the final say in determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. If not, we would have a lot of lop sided laws which are generally a knee jerk reaction to events whether local or national.

Dude, off-topic, but you know that quote in your sig is from Linkin Park right?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tss4
who said anything about terminating 'a human' life?

Exactly. Dehumanize it to make exterminating it more palletable.

Escuse me? Who died and made you god?

You need to be a god to use logic?

Dp you get to define exclusively what qualifies as a human person?

I'm just as qualified as anybody else.

Are you an expert in biology?

What the Constitution written by biologists?

Why are you stopping there? Why isn't birth control of any sort dehumanizing?

Birth control stops the egg form being fertilized...it's not terminating a human life that has already begun.

Its still human genetic material that you're ensuring the death of you cold blooded murderer!

And to think, a few sentences later you ask me to discuss the topic rationally. :roll:

We should throw women that drink while pregnant or smoke in jail.

Why? DO we already do that for mothers who smoke around their children? If so, then yes.

I should get to claim the unborn fetus as a dependent for taxes since its a human life dependent on me (even if it doesn't come to term due to natural abortion).

They are dependents on your tax form because of the added expense which is non-existent until they're born and need diapers, insurance, formula, clothes, etc.

Are you ready to discuss the topic rationally or do you still want to throw mud?

Let's see. Moonbeam chimed in with one of his patronizing trying-to-sound-deep ramblings referring to pro-life people as dysfuncitonal idiots. But my reply is the one you singled out as "mud slinging"?

We've been over this argument before and the liberals always lose.

An unborn baby is just a human in an earlier stage of development. Whether or not we have the right to terminate that life at our own whim is not a question for biologists.

 

[imported_tss4]

An unborn baby is just a human in an earlier stage of development. Whether or not we have the right to terminate that life at our own whim is not a question for biologists.

The question as to whether its a human life is the whole debate. And to determine that you need evidence and facts. So in that regard yes it helps to have studied the topic. And apparently you do think you're a god when you can unilaterally decide truth based on your own whim.

[/quote]

They are dependents on your tax form because of the added expense which is non-existent until they're born and need diapers, insurance, formula, clothes, etc.

Yes, babies cost nothing before they're born. :disgust:

Its still human genetic material that you're ensuring the death of you cold blooded murderer!

And to think, a few sentences later you ask me to discuss the topic rationally. :roll:

Showing you what you sound like was the whole point of that statement. Quick aren't you!

Birth control stops the egg form being fertilized...it's not terminating a human life that has already begun.

why? because you decided that is when human life begins? What is the definition of human life? Your whole arguement is based on an undefined concept.

What the Constitution written by biologists?

No, did you write it?

Do you get to define exclusively what qualifies as a human person?

I'm just as qualified as anybody else.

No you aren't. you have not studied human life and you are not qualified to decide for the rest of us what constitues human life. I would also not defer to you to build a bridge, prove relativity, or manage the federal reserve. You don't get to decide for me what I can and cannot do based on your opinion. If you feel it is wrong then you shouldn't do it but you have not right to restrict the freedoms of others based on your personal beliefs.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tss4

Okay, I see you didn't really want rational debate afterall. Later.

 

[DealMonkey]

Here's what Bush has done for social conservatives thus far: 1.) Barred federal funds from supporting embryonic stem-cell research. It still can be done with private, or in the case of California, state funds. 2.) Faith-based initiatives -- allowed religious orgs to compete for federal funding in order to pursue community programs to help those in need.

That's it. There's been a lot of talk and bluster on other topics, but no concrete results.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tss4

Okay, I see you didn't really want rational debate afterall. Later.

You didn't want to debate. You wanted to tell us all why we were murderers.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Let's see. Moonbeam chimed in with one of his patronizing trying-to-sound-deep ramblings referring to pro-life people as dysfuncitonal idiots. But my reply is the one you singled out as "mud slinging"?"

Hehe, I have been accused of trying to sound deep so many times I'm becoming suspicious.

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh I don't know, I'd be pretty pissed off if the government tried to legislate what I can or can't do with my own body. It's just a good thing I'm not a chick!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
Everything depends on when it changed form being human cells to "a person".

Thus, a valid distinction must be made between the two to deny the human rights that are granted to the person. Can you make such a distinction?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, isn't the question 'What criteria have to be met before you can demand slavery from another?' Every woman constitutionally has ownership of her body. You want to take that away. It is you who should provide 'criteria', not me.

Untrue. The woman cannot consume illegal drugs, remove organs voluntarily, or attempt suicide. Clearly, then, there is no absolute right to her own body, nor have you demonstrated that a fetus is a part of her body.

Originally posted by: tss4
The question as to whether its a human life is the whole debate. And to determine that you need evidence and facts. So in that regard yes it helps to have studied the topic. And apparently you do think you're a god when you can unilaterally decide truth based on your own whim.

No, the question is whether or not it's a person, as you already pointed out in a previous post. It is undeniably human - even the USSC acknowledged this.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
The question as to whether its a human life is the whole debate. And to determine that you need evidence and facts. So in that regard yes it helps to have studied the topic. And apparently you do think you're a god when you can unilaterally decide truth based on your own whim.

No, the question is whether or not it's a person, as you already pointed out in a previous post. It is undeniably human - even the USSC acknowledged this.

When I refer to 'a human', I mean it as a direct substitution for 'a person'. I consider saying something is human to be different from saying something is 'a human'. Its semantics, but I'm just trying to clear up what I mean.

Also, why can't a woman commit suicide or remove a body organ? I've never heard of a law outlawing that. Drugs are a different matter. They're outlawed because of thier destructive affect on society.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
When I refer to 'a human', I mean it as a direct substitution for 'a person'. I consider saying something is human to be different from saying something is 'a human'. Its semantics, but I'm just trying to clear up what I mean.

Also, why can't a woman commit suicide or remove a body organ? I've never heard of a law outlawing that. Drugs are a different matter. They're outlawed because of thier destructive affect on society.

Such laws do exist. One that you've obviously heard of is that you don't have a right to assisted suicide (except in Oregon I believe). Such a ban in other states clearly indicates that you do not have absolute legal control of your body. I don't know a good site to find laws by subject (tried findlaw, but it's smarter than I am today), so I can't get specific references.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
When I refer to 'a human', I mean it as a direct substitution for 'a person'. I consider saying something is human to be different from saying something is 'a human'. Its semantics, but I'm just trying to clear up what I mean.

Also, why can't a woman commit suicide or remove a body organ? I've never heard of a law outlawing that. Drugs are a different matter. They're outlawed because of thier destructive affect on society.

Such laws do exist. One that you've obviously heard of is that you don't have a right to assisted suicide (except in Oregon I believe). Such a ban in other states clearly indicates that you do not have absolute legal control of your body. I don't know a good site to find laws by subject (tried findlaw, but it's smarter than I am today), so I can't get specific references.

A lot of the reasoning for assisted-suicide laws has to do with slippery slope, not any real desire to stop people from controlling their own bodies.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A lot of the reasoning for assisted-suicide laws has to do with slippery slope, not any real desire to stop people from controlling their own bodies.

It's not just assisted suicide - all suicide. And there are non-fallacious reasons for opposing assisted/other suicide.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
A lot of the reasoning for assisted-suicide laws has to do with slippery slope, not any real desire to stop people from controlling their own bodies.

It's not just assisted suicide - all suicide. And there are non-fallacious reasons for opposing assisted/other suicide.

Slippery slope isn't always fallacious - in this case (assisted suicide) it isn't fallacious at all; it's a very legitimate concern.

I don't think unassisted suicide should be illegal though.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Social issues are not typically decided on 'policy' but by the courts (at least, this is how the progression towards social liberalism has progressed, whereas the social conservative agenda was promoted through the legislature, which is the proper procedure). Thus, to enable a socially conservative agenda, judges and justices must be replaced with those who favor a socially conservative viewpoint.

Two cases come to mind: homosexual marriage and abortion. Every state had laws banning abortion prior to Roe v Wade. Most (if not all) states had/have laws banning homosexual marriage. These laws have been enacted through legislation, which is the proper form of policy enactment. Liberal-leaning courts have effectively bypassed legislation by declaring such legislation unconstitutional using spurious (at best) interpretations of the constitution.

Which conservatives will also do, and liberals will claim the same argument above.

Politics is often a lot of smoke and mirrors. You just hope not to be caught with the mirror in hand, or fanning the smoke.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Slippery slope isn't always fallacious - in this case (assisted suicide) it isn't fallacious at all; it's a very legitimate concern.

I don't think unassisted suicide should be illegal though.

Well, typically if it's not fallacious you would call it something like a genuine concern rather than a slippery slope.

I guess unassisted suicide isn't illegal - just attempted unassisted suicide. You can't get charged if you succeed. I don't think the laws in this regard are enforced (usually the person receives treatment instead of charges), but laws do exist. I think society has a vested interest in seeing you live your life, since they have subsidized you throughout your development.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Slippery slope isn't always fallacious - in this case (assisted suicide) it isn't fallacious at all; it's a very legitimate concern.

I don't think unassisted suicide should be illegal though.

Well, typically if it's not fallacious you would call it something like a genuine concern rather than a slippery slope.

I guess unassisted suicide isn't illegal - just attempted unassisted suicide. You can't get charged if you succeed. I don't think the laws in this regard are enforced (usually the person receives treatment instead of charges), but laws do exist. I think society has a vested interest in seeing you live your life, since they have subsidized you throughout your development.

No really - slippery slope is a form of argument - the reason it is associated with fallacy is that the argument form is very demanding if you want to create a valid argument. I think assisted suicide fits the bill there.

As for ordinary suicide, I really don't know what to do with that. There are certainly people who kill themselves who could be helped by treatment, but there are others who kill themselves because their situation really becomes unbearable and unchangable. I have sympathy for those people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
Everything depends on when it changed form being human cells to "a person".

Thus, a valid distinction must be made between the two to deny the human rights that are granted to the person. Can you make such a distinction?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, isn't the question 'What criteria have to be met before you can demand slavery from another?' Every woman constitutionally has ownership of her body. You want to take that away. It is you who should provide 'criteria', not me.

Untrue. The woman cannot consume illegal drugs, remove organs voluntarily, or attempt suicide. Clearly, then, there is no absolute right to her own body, nor have you demonstrated that a fetus is a part of her body.

Originally posted by: tss4
The question as to whether its a human life is the whole debate. And to determine that you need evidence and facts. So in that regard yes it helps to have studied the topic. And apparently you do think you're a god when you can unilaterally decide truth based on your own whim.

No, the question is whether or not it's a person, as you already pointed out in a previous post. It is undeniably human - even the USSC acknowledged this.

I did not claim the fetus was a part of the woman's body, only that it is dependent on it and can therefore have no preemptive rights over whether the mother has to continue that dependency. Legally, you do not have to jump in a lake to save a drowning person so there is also no absolute right to life.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I did not claim the fetus was a part of the woman's body, only that it is dependent on it and can therefore have no preemptive rights over whether the mother has to continue that dependency. Legally, you do not have to jump in a lake to save a drowning person so there is also no absolute right to life.

If a mother stops feeding her child immediately after it's born, then it's murder, correct? So where is the division? The child will be dependent on the mother for years after birth, so why the distinction?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I did not claim the fetus was a part of the woman's body, only that it is dependent on it and can therefore have no preemptive rights over whether the mother has to continue that dependency. Legally, you do not have to jump in a lake to save a drowning person so there is also no absolute right to life.

If a mother stops feeding her child immediately after it's born, then it's murder, correct? So where is the division? The child will be dependent on the mother for years after birth, so why the distinction?

A fetus (depending on a how old) is for the most part, dependent on the mother.

Something I've been thinking about. If life cannot sustain itself, it's obiviously not life.

 

[DealMonkey]

I don't believe a fetus is worthy of granting all of the rights of a "fully born human" and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. You may as well go piss in the wind.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't believe a fetus is worthy of granting all of the rights of a "fully born human" and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. You may as well go piss in the wind.

It's amazing how many threads decend into when is it life hell.

The cells, oh the noes, Save the Cells!!!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If a mother stops feeding her child immediately after it's born, then it's murder, correct? So where is the division? The child will be dependent on the mother for years after birth, so why the distinction?

A fetus (depending on a how old) is for the most part, dependent on the mother.

Something I've been thinking about. If life cannot sustain itself, it's obiviously not life.

The part you quoted points out the obviuos incongruity in your claim. Clearly, the child cannot live even after birth without the mother. Does that mean a newborn is 'not life'? You've just discovered the problem common to all pro-choice philosophers - that their ideas must be extended to allow infanticide. At least you're really thinking about it. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't believe a fetus is worthy of granting all of the rights of a "fully born human" and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. You may as well go piss in the wind.

At least you admit it. :thumbsup:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't believe a fetus is worthy of granting all of the rights of a "fully born human" and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. You may as well go piss in the wind.

So where is the line drawn? Heard this morning that a set of premature twins that were 9 oz when born both have made it home. Apparenty this is a record for smallest babies born to have lived.