Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2019, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We would definitely have to disagree, because the interpretation of this right has changed over the decades since its drafting. Its application has not been static as the courts have introduced different interpretations, even to the point at which Scalia's opinion in Heller still disagrees with you as it states that the right is not unlimited, meaning it can be infringed.

Yes, there is not a strict constitutional interpretation of the second and yes it has been interpreted differently throughout the years.  What hasn't really changed, and was asserted by SCOTUS in the 1800's, is that the men capable of fighting are the militia referred to in the 2nd.  A lot of the interpretation issues with the 2nd come from the differences in how English is sued from now compared to when it was written.  For sintance "well regulated" meant, essentially, "in good working order". 

Quote:It may very well seem black and white, but that's not the way our government looks at it. This is why these civil liberties are almost entirely rooted in judicial interpretation.

Even when they should not, agreed.  There's simply no way to write any law that will cover all possible future developments.

[GMDino]

(05-16-2019, 02:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Abortion does end the life of a growing human being, this isn't disputable. 

(05-16-2019, 02:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whether the unborn should be considered a human being is the crux of the disagreement.    

"indisputable"

Yeah, we're done here.

You went from "he sincerely believes" to "indisputable".  Then said there is "disagreement".

No sense continuing with you.

Have a GREAT day.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2019, 02:31 PM)GMDino Wrote:


"indisputable"

Yeah, we're done here.

You went from "he sincerely believes" to "indisputable".  Then said there is "disagreement".

No sense continuing with you.

Have a GREAT day.

The qualifier "growing" is rather important here.  Are you really trying to assert that a zygote is not a growing human being?  This is not in dispute I would hope.  Whether it should be legally considered a human being is the crux of the argument.  If you can't grasp this difference then you are correct, your lack of comprehension does make continuing rather pointless.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 02:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The qualifier "growing" is rather important here.  Are you really trying to assert that a zygote is not a growing human being?  This is not in dispute I would hope. 

Is a seed a tree?

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2019, 03:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it would help you a bit if you came to the realization that the vast majority of people who are "pro life" honestly believe you are murdering a child when you get an abortion. 

(05-15-2019, 07:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am pretty sure everyone here clearly understands their position.

(05-15-2019, 10:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Somehow I don't think so.

This is crazy.

Please provide me a link to any abortion argument/debate from any place anytime where the Pro Life side did not say abortion is killing a child.

That is pretty much ALL they say.

How the hell could we not get that point by now?

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2019, 07:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think it would help you a bit if you came to the realization that the vast majority of people who are pro gun regulation believe that making it easy for criminals and people with zero training to buy and possess deadly weapons leads to increased violence and deaths.

(05-15-2019, 10:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I could be wrong, but I think you're again conflating a Constitutionally guaranteed right with a non-right.  Your argument is silly.  

  
Considering I did not mention any right other than the one to bear arms you are indeed wrong.

My argument is not silly.  In fact it has already been accepted by legislators and ratified by courts.  If you don't get what I am talking about go try to buy a fully automatic weapon.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2019, 05:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is a seed a tree?

Is a plant an animal? Another silly argument

(05-16-2019, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is crazy.

Please provide me a link to any abortion argument/debate from any place anytime where the Pro Life side did not say abortion is killing a child.

That is pretty much ALL they say.

How the hell could we not get that point by now?

I said understand that they legitimately believe this.

(05-16-2019, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote:   
Considering I did not mention any right other than the one to bear arms you are indeed wrong.

You didn’t mention free speech?

Quote:My argument is not silly.  In fact it has already been accepted by legislators and ratified by courts.  If you don't get what I am talking about go try to buy a fully automatic weapon.

Whaddayouknow Fred. You can buy fully automatic weapons.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is a plant an animal?  Another silly argument

Only as silly as saying a glob of undifferentiated cells is a "human"

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I said understand that they legitimately believe this. 

Okay, Now I getting confused.


If you don't think we "legitimately believe" that argument then what do you think we believe is the nature of their argument.

What else could we possibly think they believe?  It is like the only basis for their argument.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You didn't mention free speech

Nope.

(05-15-2019, 07:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think it would help you a bit if you came to the realization that the vast majority of people who are pro gun regulation believe that making it easy for criminals and people with zero training to buy and possess deadly weapons leads to increased violence and deaths.

Nothing about free speech in there.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 06:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only as silly as saying a glob of undifferentiated cells is a "human"

According to Websters:
human
 adjective

hu·man | \ ˈhyü-mən [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=h&file=human001][/url] , ˈyü-\
Definition of human
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 

In your opinion when does the "glob of undifferentiated cells" become human. At 6 weeks is when the baby starts to form the characteristics you assert are required to be human. 

When do most women realize they are pregnant?

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am aware of the text of Roe v. Wade, it does nothing to contradict my argument as it is entirely based on interpretation.  The Framers were very clear about the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, they were not clear at all on abortions.  An interpretation is not the same thing as a direct statement.  Using this standard one could argue, with the same degree of validity, that abortion deprives the fetus of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  Again, it's strictly interpretative.  

The Framers were very clear about the right to bear arms.

It was only for people in the militia.

You agree with that?

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2019, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: According to Websters:
human
 adjective

hu·man | \ ˈhyü-mən [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=h&file=human001][/url] , ˈyü-\
Definition of human
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 

In your opinion when does the "glob of undifferentiated cells" become human. At 6 weeks is when the baby starts to form the characteristics you assert are required to be human. 

When do most women realize they are pregnant?

Between 4 and 8 weeks.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 07:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Between 4 and 8 weeks.

Perfect. 6 weeks falls right in the middle. 

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: According to Websters:
human
 adjective

hu·man | \ ˈhyü-mən [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=h&file=human001][/url] , ˈyü-\
Definition of human
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 

In your opinion when does the "glob of undifferentiated cells" become human. At 6 weeks is when the baby starts to form the characteristics you assert are required to be human. 

When do most women realize they are pregnant?

So now you are saying "human" life begins at 6 weeks?

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 07:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So now you are saying "human" life begins at 6 weeks?

Nope, I'm saying/ have said human life begins at conception. I asked you using criteria you've proposed. You should have picked up on that when the sentence started In your opinion...

Of course answering questions has never been your strong suit.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whaddayouknow Fred. You can buy fully automatic weapons.

But only under strict federal regulation.

That was my point. Legislators and courts agree with me that there can be limits placed on your second amendment rights based on public safety considerations.

[*bfine32*]

WTH are Fred and SSF debating gun control laws?

[Dill]

(05-16-2019, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTH are Fred and SSF debating gun control laws?

They are arguing about the FORM of legal interpretation regarding definition/establishment of rights by introducing analogies based upon different content, i.e., different subject matters.  

[GMDino]

So let's say a state passes very stringent guns laws.  Allowing for ownership but with grand measures like requiring a doctor's evaluation (physically and mentally) from very specific kinds of doctors and approval from every person you live with before you can own a gun.   You can still own one but you must got through tons of hoops (no you don't now) and it is heavily regulated by the government to limit the number of people who can actually pass the tests to get a gun.  You are still allowed to have them!  You just have to meet very specific guidelines.  Because of safety reasons.  We must try and limit the number of gun deaths (murders and suicides and accidental) and well, the government knows how best to determine if the right to life (of your or someone else) outweighs the right to own a gun.

Would pro-gun be okay and say "well, the court will throw it out because its a waste of time.  I have a right.  they can't just limit how I use it! They can't take the choice away from me because of my circumstances!"

Because I'd rather they invest in education and safety rather than limit gun ownership.  And I'd rather they invest in education and safety rather than outlaw abortions.

No draconian measure will stop abortions, nor shootings.

So let's stop pretending and get to the root of the problem versus attacking the results and the women who have to make that choice.