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
No quandary at all Pawz.
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
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.
[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.
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.
A) A "1 hour old child" implies - to anyone not reading this thread - life outside the womb.
Most of us? don't know Latin and don't have the time required to go look it up. Please to be explaining like we?re 4 years old.
C) Where did I say this is merely a decision of convenience?
Lastly, and the most important question from my view, why do you think it acceptable for the State to interject itself in ANY medical decision between individuals and their doctors?
I've gone as far as I can go for you Pawz. It's all there for you - simply assimilate and cogitate. I've laid down for you the bread crumbs to follow on the path to enlightenment. If my version be too erudite, then just follow Sleddy's more "to the point" style. He gets it.
Or, stay here and continue to mire yourself in the filth of this swampy bog of practical political gamesmanship and compromise with the Time Limit and State's Rights Bros. The choice is yours. At least I now know who the baby killers are.
Comments
Or, stay here and continue to mire yourself in the filth of this swampy bog of practical political gamesmanship and compromise with the Time Limit and State's Rights Bros. The choice is yours. At least I now know who the baby killers are.