Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Breaking news - R v. W sells couch
Comments
-
Yes.pawz said:
But were they?Sledog said:
The founders were Christians.Sources said:
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible -
Local media hyping Oregon companies which will pay for transportation for an abortion to an abortion state from a pro-life state. An obvious swell example of community caring by a business. Not every employer will pay $600 for an airplane ticket to avoid a $18,000 hospital bill for a baby delivery.
-
The question is whether this court decision makes the lunatic leftists so angry that they finally take off their masks in order for their voices to be heard
-
Pitchfork51 said:
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
Wait wait wait... they're going to promote crossing state linesWestlinnDuck said:Local media hyping Oregon companies which will pay for transportation for an abortion to an abortion state from a pro-life state. An obvious swell example of community caring by a business. Not every employer will pay $600 for an airplane ticket to avoid a $18,000 hospital bill for a baby delivery.
-
[Sigh]. At the risk of making another tedious, boring and paranoid rant, the issue is too important to sit idly by and allow it to be bungled by lesser men ... no offense intended.Sources said:
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists. -
Doesn't matter.pawz said:
But were they?Sledog said:
The founders were Christians.Sources said:
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.creepycoug said:
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.Sources said:
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible -
Don't care just want to smash and not have a child with some skank
-
Firstly, the qualifier 'innocent' is yours and yours alone. Due to focused myopathy, on your part, it inherently discredits your want to use the preamble as a basis for your altruism.creepycoug said:
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
If you are going to use the ubiquity of the preamble, then you must be against Capital Punishment and any War to the extent that a person or the state's involvement does not extend past purely self-defense mores. I will patiently await your equal condemnation of the aforementioned.
When was the last time you read the original Roe decision? Frankly, your position here is making me believe you may never have read it. The original decision was about the state's obligation to protect the life of the mother - full stop. Since the life of the mother is in fact the basis for the case, how can the claim of non-sequitur be anything less than a feeble red herring?
Speaking of red herrings and non-sequiturs, this debate has zero to do with the choice between your life and mine. It's about the inextricably linked lives of the mother and offspring in-utero. The off-spring who would not even be available for discussion without the mother. People forget that before modern medicine, the mother literally risked her own life to give birth to an offspring. You of course did not forget, but in the next paragraph you blamed her for being raped. Good luck explaining that position to your daughters.
While we continue to argue over black and white positions, your original position for all the gray matter in-between is still and will forever be the best - an unfortunate necessity.
-
