The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 11:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I thought you were arguing that a fetus has a life of its own before the date of viability.

Don't know how I could have gotten that idea.

You most certainly didn't get it from me.

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2015, 12:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: *sigh*

So you are saying it is POSSIBLE to keep it alive when separated from the mother?

Where did I say that? It must remain in the incubation chamber to live. Can we kill it because it is not a life?

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 12:18 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species ***** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

The United States government has passed laws that make it so that you can catch a double murder charge for killing a woman who is carrying a child.....of ANY developmental stage.  Termination of the fetus is considered murder under this law.  Murder, as in ending a life.  

Is anyone in disagreement with this law?  Should the murder of the woman carrying the child NOT be considered a double homicide?

I disagree with that law.

No one refers to a pregnant woman as "you two people".

When I file my taxes I never got to claim a fetus as a dependent.

When we do the national census we don't count unborn children as individuals.

I could on and on and on and on with examples of how no one considers an unborn child as a person.  It defies logic that killing a pregnant woman should be considered a double homicide.

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 12:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say that? It must remain in the incubation chamber to live. Can we kill it because it is not a life?

So is alive outside of the womb?  Separate and apart from the mother?

Is that what you are saying?

Just want to make sure because I think we may have already addressed this situation.

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2015, 12:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So is alive outside of the womb?  Separate and apart from the mother?

Is that what you are saying?

Just want to make sure because I think we may have already addressed this situation.

Nope. I'm saying it is in an incubation system, of which, it is totally reliant. 

I can't type any slower. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-08-2015, 12:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: *sigh*

So you are saying it is POSSIBLE to keep it alive when separated from the mother?

Funny that you ask this question after making fun of me for answering it over and over again.

You're considering "a life of its own" as anything that doesn't require a host to sustain it. A full grown adult in some cases, and especially a baby, will require assistance to maintain viability. It's semantics and a weak stance to say a fetus is "different" from the other two examples in needing assistance. It is different physically,  but both still requires assistance. But, AGAIN, my argument isn't the physical difference, it's the weaksauce rationalization that half of the difference (fetus) isn't viable AFTER something intervenes to remove it from the assistance. Otherwise, left alone, it grows and becomes viable.

The other half still dies without assistance, they just die outside the host. It's not a rational basis for argument because they all die in the end.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-08-2015, 12:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I disagree with that law.

No one refers to a pregnant woman as "you two people".

When I file my taxes I never got to claim a fetus as a dependent.

When we do the national census we don't count unborn children as individuals.

I could on and on and on and on with examples of how no one considers an unborn child as a person.  It defies logic that killing a pregnant woman should be considered a double homicide.

I'm barking up the wrong tree with this but i'll throw it out there anyway, even though it's not necessarily directed toward you. Pat referenced Roe v Wade, a decision made by the Federal Government regarding abortions, and JC just referenced the VoVA, another decision made by the Federal Government. I wonder how many people agree with R v W but disagree with the VoVA and i wonder if those people could be considered hypocrites? I get the difference between a personal decision vs a random act committed against an individual, but the crux of the matter is the distinction of what is considered viable. One one hand, a fetus is not viable while on the other hand, it is. Yet they're both decisions made by the Government. 

The reason i ask is because, if you're going to stand on one and disagree with another, it's seems you (generally) are just looking for instances that support your belief and you're not really concerned with getting to the true facts of the matter.

Regarding the bolded part of your post; in due time you, and they, do. 

So, once again, it comes down to time and not an eventual result.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-08-2015, 12:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So is alive outside of the womb?  Separate and apart from the mother?

Is that what you are saying?

Just want to make sure because I think we may have already addressed this situation.

Why is simply "outside the womb" more important than sustainability?

[Belsnickel]

(07-08-2015, 01:18 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm barking up the wrong tree with this but i'll throw it out there anyway, even though it's not necessarily directed toward you. Pat referenced Roe v Wade, a decision made by the Federal Government regarding abortions, and JC just referenced the VoVA, another decision made by the Federal Government. I wonder how many people agree with R v W but disagree with the VoVA and i wonder if those people could be considered hypocrites? I get the difference between a personal decision vs a random act committed against an individual, but the crux of the matter is the distinction of what is considered viable. One one hand, a fetus is not viable while on the other hand, it is. Yet they're both decisions made by the Government. 

The reason i ask is because, if you're going to stand on one and disagree with another, it's seems you (generally) are just looking for instances that support your belief and you're not really concerned with getting to the true facts of the matter.

Regarding the bolded part of your post; in due time you, and they, do. 

So, once again, it comes down to time and not an eventual result.

I agree with RvW and agree with VoVA, but I've explained my position in being that it should not be the government's decision in the instance of abortion and has nothing to do with personhood for the fetus.

[GMDino]

This type of discussion is what I call "mental masturbation". It feels good to get it all out but it really doesn't do much.

Abortion is legal. The person who can legally make the choice to end a pregnancy of the fetus she is carrying is the mother of the fetus. The fetus is surviving in and because of her body sustaining it. She has the right, legally, to have the pregnancy ended. That decision will result in the termination of the development of the fetus which may have formed a human being at some point or may have spontaneously miscarried or been deformed or a multitude of other possibilities.

The other law from 2004 says that if someone ELSE kills the fetus they will held accountable. No one outside can decide to end the development of the fetus.

An apple...an orange.

There has been some movement to try and hold mothers more responsible. Laws that will charge them with harming the fetus if they use drugs or smoke. This falls under the second law. Its also a not so thinly veiled attempt to "prove" that a fetus is a human being and therefore abortion should be illegal.

Even those who support abortion as a right (mostly and generally) do not want fetuses aborted beyond a certain point in their development. I'm sure there are fringe people that feel differently...there always is.

So you can be against it, you can think its awful, but it is not your choice, legally, to make. That choice comes down tot he person whose body is hosting the fetus.

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Could a tumor grow to become a functioning member of society if left unmolested?

 

Yes

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 12:49 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote:  It's semantics and a weak stance to say a fetus is "different" from the other two examples in needing assistance. It is different physically,  but both still requires assistance. 

It has nothing to do with semantics.

Once outside of the womb it is impossible for the fetus to survive no matter how much assitance you give it.

the difference between "impossible" and "possible" is not just semantics.

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 01:19 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Why is simply "outside the womb" more important than sustainability?

Are you seriously comparing the rights of a mother to an incubation machine?

Until the fetus can survive separate and apart from the mother it has no rights that are superior to the mother.  The right to abort the fetus belongs to the mother because it is a part of her body and not a separate person with rights of its own.  It does not get any rights of its own until it can survive separate from the mother.

I am not trying to give ANYONE the right to abort a fetus.  I am only trying to give that right to the mother.  As long as the fetus is nothing more than a part of her body she has the right to do what she wants with it.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-08-2015, 10:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Until the fetus can survive separate and apart from the mother it has no rights that are superior to the mother.  The right to abort the fetus belongs to the mother because it is a part of her body and not a separate person with rights of its own.  It does not get any rights of its own until it can survive separate from the mother.

Soooooooooooo, like when it's 16? Or whenever it gets a job?

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2015, 08:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes

Well, I seen the functioning criteria eliminated Hillary; fortunately for her, functioning was not a requirement during her tenure as SoS.

[BmorePat87]

(07-08-2015, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, I seen the functioning criteria eliminated Hillary; fortunately for her, functioning was not a requirement during her tenure as SoS.

That was embarrassing for our country.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-08-2015, 08:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes

I admit, I lol'd.

[GMDino]

(07-08-2015, 05:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:


That was embarrassing for our country.

Not being able to post a picture isn't THAT bad.