(06-13-2019, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not tracking how either of these statements is a response to my post.

(06-13-2019, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All are created equal not "brought into personhood (sounds like a made up word)" equal. So if we are all created equal why does the created child not have the right to live. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(06-13-2019, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You stated we are restricting her liberty if we made abortion illegal. Why are we not restricting her liberty because killing her 1 day old is illegal?

(06-13-2019, 04:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the statement starts with "all men," or in modern terms, all people. The unborn are not included in that. They are not equal as they are not persons under the law.


I never said it wasn't; however, those two scenarios are not comparable for obvious reasons that make this argument absurd.

(06-13-2019, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why didn't they say born equal? Why didn't they add "after birth" to the end of phrase "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"? You can get caught on your semantic in the phrase and I can get caught up in mine. Only difference is you add a qualifier to yours and I use the actual word. How do you know they meant "after birth" when they refereed to All Men? We've already modified it at least once; however, no matter how hard the Left tries you cannot modify the term created. 

(06-13-2019, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What's absurd is the argument you're trying to make. It's the same mentality that sates: When can't make abortion illegal because then we force people to break the law. if it is illegal I'm not infringing your Liberty.

(06-13-2019, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You would have to ask them their reason for language. They also didn't understand how pregnancy began at that time, so maybe that had something to do with it. What I do know is that abortion in British colonies, and in most of the post-colonial states, was legal.


It's not at all that same mentality. Making abortion illegal essentially imprisons women for committing no crime as they give up bodily autonomy. Shall we also pass a law that makes it so any person upon impregnating someone shall refrain from any intoxicating substances, shall induce vomiting for two-weeks each morning, shall be forced to turn up the thermostat in their environment by 20 degrees, carry around 10-50 extra pounds on top of their usual load, and not consume fish or caffeine for the duration of the person's pregnancy?

(06-13-2019, 05:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Last I checked there was the DOI was trying to get us from being a British Colony.

Look who was talking about absurdity. The slippery Slope fallacy is strong in this one. They gave up their bodily autonomy when they allowed someone in it. They freely engaged in the exercise and suffered the consequences. Should we forgive the drunk driver for causing an accident, in which no one was hurt, because he didn't intend to crash or should we hold him accountable for his action?

***WTS, I'm done with this 1,000th thread on abortion. In my 10+ years on the forum I have seen little compromise and I expect to see none here.    



***May reengage to address ad-hominem posts

(06-13-2019, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  How do you know they meant "after birth" when they refereed to All Men?

(06-11-2019, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all honesty, my position is based entirely on the legal aspects of the situation. The unborn are not persons, they hold no legal rights. They lack a birth certificate, a SSN, or any other sort of identification that our society uses to prove the legal presence of an individual. No presence, no rights. Therefore, the right to liberty of the expecting mother is not infringing on the rights of another individual if she chooses to have an abortion.

I use the religious conversation simply to push back on the idea of its use to justify infringing on the rights of women. I could provide scripture quotes backing up the idea that life begins at breath, meaning not until a child is out of the womb. Hermetical argumentation that there is an "approved" method of abortion in the OT. Also that causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a property crime, while injuring the woman herself is treated as a crime against a person. All of this is biblical evidence that life begins at birth and not in the womb.

But none of that really matters to me. The legal argument is what it is.

(06-13-2019, 05:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They gave up their bodily autonomy when they allowed someone in it.

(06-13-2019, 07:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: From a scientific standpoint, the life cycle of a human being begins after fertilization.

So basically what you are saying is that people that don't have SSN's/BC's can be terminated with out legal repercussions because they legally don't exist?

(06-13-2019, 07:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: From a scientific standpoint, the life cycle of a human being begins after fertilization.

So basically what you are saying is that people that don't have SSN's/BC's can be terminated with out legal repercussions because they legally don't exist?

(06-13-2019, 08:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death. Can't use that argument to justify being pro life and pro death penalty.

(06-13-2019, 09:39 AM)jj22 Wrote: 13 pages and still no "Pro Lifers" willing to advocate for programs to help the mothers and babies once they've forced them to have them.

"shocking".

Not really.

#LifeBeginsAtConceptionAndEndsAtBirth  they want us to believe.

(06-13-2019, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not tracking how either of these statements is a response to my post.

(06-13-2019, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you consider those sentenced to die have had their day in court, have been judged by a jury of their peers, and sentenced by a judge learned in the law.

IF we consider those simple facts then you can absolutely justify the stance and realize the two are apples to oranges.

Now if we just pulled folks off the street and killed them because they inconvenienced us, then it would be apples to apples and highlights the atrocity.

(06-13-2019, 07:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That's an old and tired clique.
With the abilities we have today, it's almost moot. But to satisfy your need to repeat this, if not 100% sure then no death penalty. Seriously, we aren't in the 60's anymore where the local sheriff can frame someone he doesn't like for a crime.

So now you can't use this argument anymore.

(06-13-2019, 07:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Seriously, we aren't in the 60's anymore where the local sheriff can frame someone he doesn't like for a crime.

(06-13-2019, 08:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death. Can't use that argument to justify being pro life and pro death penalty.

(06-14-2019, 01:17 AM)JSR18 Wrote: Innocent or not, makes no difference.

I'm saying I can be pro-life on the abortion issue because babies/fetus' don't have a say in whether they live or die. Also, nobody appointed women God-like to decide who lives and who dies.

I'm also saying I can be pro-death penalty because most of the bags of trash that rape, pillage and murder deserve it...

(06-14-2019, 01:17 AM)JSR18 Wrote: Innocent or not, makes no difference.

I'm saying I can be pro-life on the abortion issue because babies/fetus' don't have a say in whether they live or die. Also, nobody appointed women God-like to decide who lives and who dies.

I'm also saying I can be pro-death penalty because most of the bags of trash that rape, pillage and murder deserve it...