T-Minus 4 Days till Weitz Permanent Collaborators Status

Status
Not open for further replies.

PlastikBuddha

New member
If German citizens protested companies in Nazi Germany that built concentration camps, even if those citizens didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding, do you think history books today would be attempting to ridicule their efforts?

Nazi Schmazi. If you think history will judge your attempts to intimidate people only tangentially involved in the abortion industry (clients of a company that bulit an abortion facility!?!? C'mon, folks use some common sense) into playing ball with you by harrassing them at their homes is equivalent to protesting Nazi death camps you have a way inflated sense of your own heroism. If this war is ever going to be won it is going to be by changing people's minds not just inconvenincing them. Those ultrasound machines- now that's a great idea!
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Nazi Schmazi. If you think history will judge your attempts to intimidate people only tangentially involved in the abortion industry (clients of a company that bulit an abortion facility!?!? C'mon, folks use some common sense) into playing ball with you by harrassing them at their homes is equivalent to protesting Nazi death camps you have a way inflated sense of your own heroism.
And the difference between the 2 is...?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Actually, Jeff, I don't spend all my free time on TOL so I didn't get into it and I've elaborated on this point before. And PB's right: beyond the political and historical inaccuracy of your analogy it's self aggrandizing as all hell.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
And the difference between the 2 is...?

Historical precedent for one. The jews in Germany, Poland, etc were citizens prior to their internment. There is no real historical precedent for the recognition of full humanity of the unborn. Regarding the unborn, and indeed even infants in general, as the "two in the bush" and only those who had passed through the risky early years intact as safely in hand, has been the norm. It will require a shift in perception in order for both sides to agree on when a human life is worth protecting (or on when it is feasible to do so) and the only way that is going to happen is by rational discussion- not street mobs and threats.
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42787&page=76&highlight=Holocaust

You may want to read this as well Jefferson. Predictably this post was completely ignored by you people. That goes a ways towards explaining why I don't dip too deep into many topics around here: when I do, I notice everyone just disappears. Convenient.

And some more:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44438&page=8&highlight=anti-semitism

Having gone over this once before I have little desire to rehash the same pro-life agitprop.
 
Last edited:

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Historical precedent for one. The jews in Germany, Poland, etc were citizens prior to their internment. There is no real historical precedent for the recognition of full humanity of the unborn.
And the unborn are citizens in the U.S.

From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From the U.S. Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

From the Bill of Rights: "Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
And the unborn are citizens in the U.S.
In what sense? They are not listed on census reports. They do not have social security numbers and are not recorded anywhere. How can their "rights" be protected if the government doesn't even know they exist? Or are you suggesting that women should be tested by the government to see if they have a bun in the oven so it can be given these "rights"?
From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From the U.S. Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

From the Bill of Rights: "Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

All very spiffy- but if the government doesn't force women to register pregnancy then the unborn are non-entities as far as the government is concerned. Their rights don't exist. They are not citizens. They are not recognized as people. If a woman miscarries there is no suspicion of a murder. There is no investigation.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
In what sense? They are not listed on census reports. They do not have social security numbers and are not recorded anywhere. How can their "rights" be protected if the government doesn't even know they exist? Or are you suggesting that women should be tested by the government to see if they have a bun in the oven so it can be given these "rights"?


All very spiffy- but if the government doesn't force women to register pregnancy then the unborn are non-entities as far as the government is concerned. Their rights don't exist. They are not citizens. They are not recognized as people. If a woman miscarries there is no suspicion of a murder. There is no investigation.
The ignoring of our nation's founding documents is not legitimized just because our governement is the one who is doing the ignoring.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
The ignoring of our nation's founding documents is not legitimized just because our governement is the one who is doing the ignoring.

It's only "ignoring" if you consider the unborn to be US citizens. You have not established that. You have not offered any practical method of safeguarding their "rights". You have not proposed a way to count or in any other way make the government even aware of their existence. All you have done is bluster.
 

Jukia

New member
In general, I am not sure that you can use the Declaration of Independence to support any rights you claim you have. I think the Declaration is a fine statement of political belief but I think the Constitution trumps the Declaration as a document to support a legal argument.

As I read the portions of the Constitution that Jefferson has cited the issue is whether a fertilized egg is a "person" from that point forward. Seems to me that is where you must start.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
In general, I am not sure that you can use the Declaration of Independence to support any rights you claim you have. I think the Declaration is a fine statement of political belief but I think the Constitution trumps the Declaration as a document to support a legal argument.

As I read the portions of the Constitution that Jefferson has cited the issue is whether a fertilized egg is a "person" from that point forward. Seems to me that is where you must start.

And if a fertilized egg is a person the question must be asked: how do we protect this person's rights? Take drinking alcohol and smoking during pregnancy, for example. Both of these greatly increase the risk of pregnancy complications, thus potentially endangering the life of the unborn person. Should it be illegal for a woman to do these things during pregnancy? How could that be enforced, however, since a woman need not register her pregnancy with the government?
What about caffeine? A couple cups of coffee every day increases the risk of miscarriage astronomically- should this morning joe be construed as reckless child endangerment, and any miscarriages resulting from this negligent homicide?
The personhood of the unborn is untenable. It is not supported historically and it is not feasible now.
 

Jukia

New member
And if a fertilized egg is a person the question must be asked: how do we protect this person's rights? Take drinking alcohol and smoking during pregnancy, for example. Both of these greatly increase the risk of pregnancy complications, thus potentially endangering the life of the unborn person. Should it be illegal for a woman to do these things during pregnancy? How could that be enforced, however, since a woman need not register her pregnancy with the government?
What about caffeine? A couple cups of coffee every day increases the risk of miscarriage astronomically- should this morning joe be construed as reckless child endangerment, and any miscarriages resulting from this negligent homicide?
The personhood of the unborn is untenable. It is not supported historically and it is not feasible now.

Solution is clear---pregnant women should report their condition immediately. probably to a cleric, a Christian evangelist one at that. She can then be quarantined, so that she does not drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. Over the counter pregnancy tests should be banned. Any woman who fails to register yet gives birth to a baby gets a nick put in her ear, that way everyone will know---a little more subtle than a Scarlet A.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Then why do you care about or respect the founding documents of this country?
I was pointing out the error PlastikBuddha made when he incorrectly stated the following in post #45:
There is no real historical precedent for the recognition of full humanity of the unborn.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
I was pointing out the error PlastikBuddha made when he incorrectly stated the following in post #45:

What error? Nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is there anything to show that our forefathers considered the unborn to be citizens with constitutional rights. No one refers to a fertilized egg or any stage between that and birth as "posterity", btw. "Honey, I've got some great news! I just took the test and you now have posterity!" :rolleyes:
I stand by my original statement. There is no precedent for considering the unborn persons with the rights of citizens.
 

Jukia

New member
PB: The point is that fundamentalists get to interpret documents, whether the Constitution or Genesis, in the manner they decide and those who do not agree are clearly atheistic commies who are going to hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top