• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Norman Alexander said:
ETA. But more seriously, yes, that's how the calculation goes. When women are considering abortion seriously, the law is the least of their worries, with doctors a close second. You do know why the term "back yard abortion" came about, don't you. Unqualified practitioner performs unclean procedure in an illegal situation. And yet it happened and still happens.
Click to expand...

That's why I am not entirely against abortion. However you seem to think that all abortion law should be stricken, and that only the mother should have a role in the decision. "No laws, no Doctors", right? I disagree with that.
 
sackett said:
If somebody must speak for the fetus, why not the woman carrying it?
Click to expand...

because it up to society as a whole to speak for the fetus, not just the mother. If I had a son that was already born, I don't have the right to say "he has no rights" can kill it. Same thing for the fetus.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
And they wrote something different later when it mattered. And they made the later writing the basis of all laws.
Click to expand...

because they realized some might ignore the ideas in the Declaration. Some were opposed to the creation of the bill rights because it would look like government was given the people theses and could therefore take them away, instead of them coming from nature.
 
Norman Alexander said:
So your answer is "Yes, it should be possible to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under certain conditions"??
Click to expand...

maybe. but I don't like it. I take no pride or joy in force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. I just think sometimes the fetus has the to live, even if the mother doesn't want it to.
 
Warbler said:
because they realized some might ignore the ideas in the Declaration. Some were opposed to the creation of the bill rights because it would look like government was given the people theses and could therefore take them away, instead of them coming from nature.
Click to expand...

When you need help to be secure in your home is it the police that show up or a tornado??

BTW it's not proper to think of them as coming from government either. They come from society. Government are one of the mechanisms societies put in place to enforce them.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
Warbler, this's a tad OT, but you should be made aware of it: The Declaration of Independence is not law. It's an 18th. century political pamphlet. That phrase "endowed by their Creator" is rhetoric, and quite to be expected in the manifestos, arguments, claims, shouts, and solemn pronouncements of that day. The clever bit is "we hold these truths to be self-evident." That's not just reversing the burden of proof, but leaping lithely right over it, because the assertion that men have inborn rights feels true and just to every self-respecting person.

I'll hazard a guess that it feels especially true and just to a woman in Texas who wants to get an abortion.
Click to expand...

I know the Declaration is not law, but it is lists the ideas that America stands for and is based on.
 
smartcooky said:
Nope, its fact.

Rights are defined and enshrined in laws... without those laws, there are no rights for any individual*. These laws specifically say to whom those rights are granted. Fetuses, embryos, zygotes and the unborn are nowhere mentioned in any laws that define human rights.

Therefore, those laws to not apply to them.

Therefore, fetuses, embryos, zygotes and the unborn have no rights. This is an irrefutable fact.

*NOTE: See North Korea as an example of somewhere in which people have no rights.
Click to expand...
Andrew Seidel, in The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American, says
There are two basic categories of law: positive law [the laws we make] and natural law, . . . a “philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly coming from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice.”
Click to expand...
He also says that the Founders wrote the Declaration to refer not to divine justice, but to the universalized conception, that is, “the law that is.”

So maybe we today reject that universalized natural law, but the Declaration didnt.
 
smartcooky said:
Then you believe incorrectly. Show me an example of a specific right granted by "nature".
Click to expand...

"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"


smartcooky said:
And since laws are the only way that rights can be granted, and since they do not grant rights to a fetus, the only logical conclusion is that a fetus does not have any rights.
Click to expand...

In law as it stand now, yes. in nature, no. If rights only exist when granted by government then rights are only violated after government gives these rights. Therefore, slavery violated no rights. The nazis violated no rights of Jewish people. Women not being able to vote violated no rights. These also all situations where the government in question failed grants rights. Yet I am sure we all agree rights were violated.

smartcooky said:
You are forgetting the three most important words in the Declaration of Independence... "We, the People"...

"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
​


This is the people, establishing a Constitution; as the basis for all the laws of the land, laws that grants rights. It does NOT declare rights to come from "nature", those right come from "the people"

If you are going argue that the "Creator" is nature, then you are quite simply wrong. This "Creator" mentioned in the DoI is just a fictional character in religious texts.... nothing to do with nature.

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) is the declaration of rights, made by the people, for the people.

Number of times "people" is mentioned = 5
Number of times "person" or "persons" is mentioned = 4
Number of times "fetus" or "fetuses" is mentioned = ZERO
Number of times "embryo" or "embryos" is mentioned = ZERO
Number of times "unborn" is mentioned = ZERO
Click to expand...

That comes for the Constitution, not the Declaration. By the way the word abortion is also not mentioned in the Constitution, you seem to think it there.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
When you need help to be secure in your home is it the police that show up or a tornado??

BTW it's not proper to think of them as coming from government either. They come from society. Government are one of the mechanisms societies put in place to enforce them.
Click to expand...

and therefore, just because a government doesn't legally recognize a certain right, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
Warbler said:
maybe I am being arbitrary. I don't know. But I believe the fetus has rights and yet I still believe it would be too cruel to force a raped woman to carry the baby to term. Think of me what you will.
Click to expand...

It's strange that you believe people conceived of rape are less-than and therefore, okay to kill. (This is assuming your assertion that a fetus is a person is true.)
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's strange that you believe people conceived of rape are less-than and therefore, okay to kill. (This is assuming your assertion that a fetus is a person is true.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you're raped you get a free pass to kill a person? I don't see how those two concepts go together either. Fortunately, they are not my thoughts.
 
Warbler said:
1. tell that to founding fathers.
Click to expand...

I doubt they would support your assertion, as they didn't put any creator or "nature" in the laws or constitution. Also, the founding fathers are not deities, they were wrong on many things as well...slavery, for example.

2. if they come from society, then no one person has to right to say the fetus doesn't have rights. Only society can say that.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why we debate laws to establish such things.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's strange that you believe people conceived of rape are less-than and therefore, okay to kill. (This is assuming your assertion that a fetus is a person is true.)
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of thinking of them as less than. It is matter that I think forcing a raped woman to carry the child to term is cruel.
 
In discussing rights, there are two general classifications.

From Wikipedia:

Natural rights and legal rights are the two basic types of rights.

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.

Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is related to the concept of legal rights.

Some of the debates here stem from each party referring to a different type.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I doubt they would support your assertion, as they didn't put any creator or "nature" in the laws or constitution.
Click to expand...

but they did in the Declaration. I guarantee you they would support my assertion about the idea that rights come from nature, not governments or a king.

thaiboxerken said:
Also, the founding fathers are not deities, they were wrong on many things as well...slavery, for example.
Click to expand...

Yes they were wrong about slavery. Slavery was a great violation of rights . . . yet these were rights the government failed to recognize . . . yet everyone would agree they existed . . . hmm . . .


thaiboxerken said:
Yes, that's why we debate laws to establish such things.
Click to expand...

and sometimes the results of said debates end up making good law and sometimes they end up making bad law and fail to recognize certain inalienable rights.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom