[an0n]

Originally posted by redmenace
I have no problems with abortion in the case of the mothers life is at stake.

Well by the same token you must also be okay with the murder of people with lethal contagious diseases, then?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kazan


I agree, however restricting someones choice about reproductive freedom is not an option

Not if if you don't agree with the view that the constitution is a living breathing breathing document. I happen to disagree with that. I consider that the signers of the declaration of independance would, besides having more balls than I will ever have, never intended for abortion to take place. This i am fairly certain. I don't think they intended for it to be interpreted the way it is now.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by an0n
Well by the same token you must also be okay with the murder of people with lethal contagious diseases, then?

the answer no, but how so? Explain your point.
I am also under the understanding is that the health situations are very rare.
But I will make the point that countries do quartine highly contagious people in the event for the safty of the population. They in fact restrict their ability and rights to move as they please.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by redmenace
The reality is that any part a body will carry that person's DNA.

Er... no.
All of the body cells carry DNA, but not all parts of the body have DNA.

[an0n]

My point was by your reasoning: If the life of an individual endangers the life of another then that person should be killed.

So by that logic you'd have to kill all murderers, rapists, drug dealers, violently-inclined people, the mentally unstable, everyone with AIDS or HIV, everyone with any hereditary diseases, the stupid, the clumsy and everyone who wants to cut NHS funding.

[Kazan]

an0n you are making false analogies

redmanace: your OPINION of the constitution is exactly that an opinion - if you don't like the fact that it protects peoples rights, including the right to reproducive freedom, including abortion - then move to a country that outlaws it and doesn't have a constitution that ensures those freedoms - simple solution


i see no one has touched my philosophical rant

[Tiara]

Once again[/u] I'm glad I live in Holland

[01010]

Originally posted by Kazan


i see no one has touched my philosophical rant

To some extent I agree, if fundamentalists continue to get more radical and continue to infringe on knowledge and freedoms it will create a lower caste of uneducated simpletons. Pretty much a slave race for the corporations. But I doubt that it'd ever be the case where they'd cause a collapse of the system, not in my lifetime.

Personally I'm more worried about what happens when the fossil fuels run out right now.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kazan
an0n you are making false analogies

redmanace: your OPINION of the constitution is exactly that an opinion - if you don't like the fact that it protects peoples rights, including the right to reproducive freedom, including abortion - then move to a country that outlaws it and doesn't have a constitution that ensures those freedoms - simple solution


i see no one has touched my philosophical rant

Yours is an opinion also. Your Philisophical Rant is an opinion. You, I think, believe in a living breathing document. That is an opinion. you have an opinion that the constitution protects reproductive rights. That is an opinion. The case Roe vs. wade is an opinion. most of your "logical" points are just opinion. Now if you don't like the fact that others have an opinion that happens to differ from yours, maybe you ought to form your own country where everyone thinks exactly like you. You could call it Kazanland. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think. However a country full of Kazan's is a frightning thought in deed. You would never be able to compromise with them no matter what.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by Kazan
i see no one has touched my philosophical rant

I like the end of it.

Smells of the frightening truth that awaits us in the near future.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Kazan
an0n you are making false analogies

Explain.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Then why not have the federal government defray those costs? Why have a non-profit organization do it?

Overturning of Roe v. Wade ==> returns jurisdiction to the states, therefore the federal government can't get involved.  That has nothing to do with whether or not Planned Parenthood gets involved.

Under American law, a human being is only a person if it is born alive.

Show me where it says they have to be born to be a person.

And abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL right, protected by the US constitution.

It is not a fundamental right at all.  On the contrary:

Amendment XIV, Section 1
...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

[Kazan]

redmenance: there is a different between AUTHORITY and LAYMEN

The judges who made the decision Roe v Wade are AUTHORITY on Constitutional Law, and their decision agrees with the documents from the UN Human Rights council

Your OPINION does not - and yes a country full of logical, irrationality-rejecting secularists must absolutely scare the **** out of you - GOOD I want it to - you are the enemy of freedom, education and rationality.   Be afraid

[Kazan]

Originally posted by 01010


To some extent I agree, if fundamentalists continue to get more radical and continue to infringe on knowledge and freedoms it will create a lower caste of uneducated simpletons.

it already is

Originally posted by 01010
Pretty much a slave race for the corporations.

Sometimes **** likes and wants to promote

Originally posted by 01010
But I doubt that it'd ever be the case where they'd cause a collapse of the system, not in my lifetime.

I see it happening sooner than you'd imagine - but there is the possibility for the government to survive the storm - but there would be many radical changes.  

Originally posted by 01010
Personally I'm more worried about what happens when the fossil fuels run out right now.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology will probably be ready to take over by the time it happens fortunately

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan
redmenance: there is a different between AUTHORITY and LAYMEN

The judges who made the decision Roe v Wade are AUTHORITY on Constitutional Law, and their decision agrees with the documents from the UN Human Rights council

Your OPINION does not - and yes a country full of logical, irrationality-rejecting secularists must absolutely scare the **** out of you - GOOD I want it to - you are the enemy of freedom, education and rationality.   Be afraid

[Flipside]

I have never really been able to uderstand the whole abortion problem, as Kazan says, until the child is birthed, whilst it is still wholly and irreplaceably dependant upon it's it's Mothers body supplying it with nutrients etc, I don't see a problem with it.
As the Foetus grows older, things get a little more complex, partly because it starts to 'look' like a baby, which will activate our protective parent gene, and also because it is a more risky and complex procedure.

So yes, I think, considering 99.99% of people on here are male and will never have to carry a child to term, that this is an issue entirely in the hands of the mother.

[Goober5000]

A child who has been born is completely dependent upon its mother too.  If you left a six-week old infant out to fend for itself, it would die.  The "viability" argument is not valid.

[Flipside]

Not as a question of nurturing, if the mother is 'removed' from the foetus (or vice versa) for even a short space of time whilst it is developing, the foetus would die. A born child can be left alone for many hours, while it sleeps, for example, and still be fine.

Also, a newborn child is dependant upon a nursing female, not neccesarily it's mother, it can now be moved if neccesary to an entirely different environment.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kazan
redmenance: there is a different between AUTHORITY and LAYMEN

The judges who made the decision Roe v Wade are AUTHORITY on Constitutional Law, and their decision agrees with the documents from the UN Human Rights council

Your OPINION does not - and yes a country full of logical, irrationality-rejecting secularists must absolutely scare the **** out of you - GOOD I want it to - you are the enemy of freedom, education and rationality.   Be afraid

You give your self far to much credit.
Secondly, I hardly call the UN an authority on human rights. Especially when the Human rights council is comprised of such members as Lybia and and I believe syria? (forgive the spellings) Some countries with the worst Human Rights Records.
The rulings of the supreme court is still an opinion. By their opinion in **** vs gore they saw that irrepible harm was being brought to ****. It is an opinion and a judgement. I recognize they might be experts at the constitution, but when you boil down to it, there rulings are nothing more that an opinion.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Flipside
Not as a question of nurturing, if the mother is 'removed' from the foetus (or vice versa) for even a short space of time whilst it is developing, the foetus would die. A born child can be left alone for many hours, while it sleeps, for example, and still be fine.

Also, a newborn child is dependant upon a nursing female, not neccesarily it's mother, it can now be moved if neccesary to an entirely different environment.

By your definition, there should be no abortion after about 7-8 months, as that's when it's possible for them to survive outside of the womb without life support.