Home - List All Discussions

Thanks to Ashley

I can prove ol Sigma wrong!

by: bradensmommy

He'll deny, deny, deny, but if you all read his nonsense you'll understand why I copied and pasted this.

A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE

by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson



1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.

4.a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the
mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own
amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5.a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

6.a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming
antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body
of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the
parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

7.a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

8.a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother,
remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary
Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology. This is reprinted, with the author's permission, from the National Right to Life News, April-May, 1974. It also appears in "The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life," by Scientists for Life. $1.75 plus postage for two ounces for each copy to: Sun Life, 2399 Cool Springs Road, Thaxton, VA 24174, 540/586-4898.]

reply from: Sigma

Well.

parasite
<biology> An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism (for example Giardia).

And yet... I don't recall saying that the fetus was a parasite. Could you point to my post?

Certainly there is some similarity between a symbiotic parasitic relationship and the pregnancy relationship, but I don't believe I ever said the fetus was a parasite.

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm going to start from the top and work my way down since I have some time.
These are from the thread: Abortion kills unborn children/babies

Those are just a few of the ones I found. But it seems as I'm reading the posts that everytime I out you on something you try to reword your phrases again. Is it just me everyone or have you noticed that as well? Here is an example of what I mean:
You said:

Jaylee asked:

And I said:

You decided to retort by "excusing" your words once again:

I have read and reread your position and everytime someone "outs" you you say almost the similar things back like "oh, I never said that" or "post what I said" And then when we do you try to reword your posts. Its really old and if you want to debate intelligently you need to grow up and be a big boy. Now, I need to go to bed, my 6 mo old has a checkup at 8:40 a.m. I'm looking forward to another thread of lies and excuses tomorrow.

reply from: yoda

bradensmommy, this old thing about the baby being a parasite is a very old canard. I've defeated it many times with exactly the definition you furnished. It's worth noting, however, that the word parasite has several meanings, and there is actually one aspect of this controversy that's valuable to us.

In the scientific sense, no gestating young of any human or animal is a parasite, because it's of the same species as it's mother. But in the vernacular sense, anyone can be a parasite if they take help from you without compensating you, like a dead beat uncle who moves in.

But in another way, it negates one of the more odious canards of the probabykilling crowd: the claim that the baby is a "part of the mother". It isn't possible for a "parasite" to be a part of the host, is it?

reply from: Tam

It doesn't negate the "part of the mother" argument, because it is in itself untrue. What negates the "part of the mother" argument is that

1) the baby has a separate genetic code from the mother; if the baby had committed a crime, DNA evidence would never link the crime to the mother

2) the baby has his/her own internal organs and physical condition; the baby can be sick when the mother is well or well when the mother is sick; the baby can be asleep when the mother is awake and awake when the mother is asleep

3) there is no anatomy/physiology text which lists "gestating child" as a body part of a female human being

I know what you're saying--that the "parasite" argument and the "part of the mother" argument are arguing precisely the opposite things, and hypocritically are both often used by those who support abortion, but you know as well as I do that the truth is that neither of these things is true, and it is the facts which negate both arguments.

reply from: yoda

Quite so. Although you could say all gestating animals are parasites in the vernacular sense, that's not really what they probabykilling crowd means.

But I think it's a lovely way to counter their idiotic, self-contradicting lies. And it's fun to see them squirm and wiggle!

reply from: Tam

Quite so. Although you could say all gestating animals are parasites in the vernacular sense, that's not really what they probabykilling crowd means.

But I think it's a lovely way to counter their idiotic, self-contradicting lies. And it's fun to see them squirm and wiggle!

I agree!

reply from: Sigma

Oh. So when I say that the fetus is connected to the woman or that the fetus uses the woman's body to live I am really saying that the fetus is a parasite?

Everytime you out me on something I what? I go back and reword every post? Is that what you're accusing me of?

bradensmommy, I have never said the fetus was a parasite. There are similarities between a symbiotic parasitic relationship and the pregnancy relationship so it is unavoidable that when we talk of the connection there will be similarities. I am not trying to say, and I never have said that the fetus is a parasite.

It is because what they, or you, say is not my belief and you either deliberately or unintentionally mischaracterize what I say. I have never said I don't believe the fetus is alive and I have never said I consider the fetus to be a parasite.

I have never gone back and editted my posts for this reason. Never.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Umm, let me copy this word for word out of another thread...

reply from: Sigma

Read what you posted. bradensmommy said:

According to 'ol Sigma (who knows everything) unborn babies aren't alive thus means they have no "right to life"

I have never said the fetus was not alive.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

But you said the Right to Life does not apply to an unborn child. Why?

reply from: Sigma

Because the fetus has not been born. Constitutional rights do not apply prenatally.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Please show me in the Constitution where it says this and I will leave you alone.

reply from: yoda

Ah, now you're abandoning "compassion and morality" and going back to the letter of the law, eh? Typical probabykilling tactic.

reply from: Sigma

It was in the Roe decision.

None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

The Constitution was not meant to apply to those not born.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Roe was wrong. You are wrong. It says nothing in the actual Constitution (No, I don't mean the Roe decision, I mean the Constitution) about it not applying to unborn babies. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was wrong, too. The Constitution did not say the blacks were not people, but the Supreme Court did. The Court was wrong. Courts make decisions that are not in keeping with the Consitution from time to time. Dred Scott was wrong, and Roe was wrong.

reply from: Sigma

That is your opinion. Currently, the Constitution does not apply to those not born.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Actually, let me clarify.........Sigma, you are saying that the unborn, though alive and human, have no rights. Roe did not say that. Roe said that the unborn cannot be legally defined as persons. It also said that if there ever came a time when the unborn could be defined as persons, then the argument for abortion would collapse. So you are inconsistent with Roe.

reply from: Tam

That is your opinion. Currently, the Constitution does not apply to those not born.

That's not it. Currently, a wrong decision is in place that affects the law--but the Constitution has not been amended, so your statement is inaccurate. The Constitution either applies to the unborn or does not apply--and Roe does not change which is the case; Roe is an opinion. The opinion affects how the Constitution is interpreted, but whatever it means, it means with or without Roe. Presumably, you'd say that the Constitution has NEVER applied to unborn children--NOT that it "currently" does not apply. I'd say that the Constitution has ALWAYS applied to unborn children--and still does, regardless of Roe or any other opinions to the contrary. One of us is right, and in the absence of an amendment changing the Constitution to specifically enumerate the rights or lack thereof of the unborn child, the SCOTUS gets to call the shots and interpret. Surely you'd consider the Constitution NOT to apply to the unborn even if Roe had been decided in the other direction. Then, YOU'D be the one saying "Roe was wrong."

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ok. Go to a website that has the Constitution word for word. Search for "prenatal." The Constitution does not say anything about unborn children not applying to the it. Unborn children are living human beings. They eat, see, hear, suck their thumbs, and any other thing that a newborn does. It is a living human. An unborn child is included in the Constitution.

reply from: MaleNurse

Could you please bring me up to speed. Has Sigma ever had an abortion?

reply from: yoda

We don't even know if Sigma is a she, he, or an "it".

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte,

You are correct that Roe decided the fetus is not considered a person, but a couple things. First, we are talking about the ‘right to life’, which does not apply if the fetus is not considered a person. Second, the rest of the Constitution did not apply already, whether or not the fetus is considered a person. So I am correct in stating that the fetus has no rights.

Search for the word “born”, and I’m pretty sure you’ll come up with something.

Tam,

Will it really change the meaning of what I said to say “The current interpretation is that the Constitution does not apply to the fetus”?

Not necessarily. Were it decided the other way the issue would have been left to the States, it would not be automatically made illegal. I would disagree were abortion made illegal.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Where on this green Earth did you come up with that? The Fourteenth Amendment specifically applies to persons. I went to http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm and searched for 'born." All it said was that a person born in the United States is a citizen and that only a person born in the United States can run for President. Nothing about personhood not applying to the unborn. So now you try and show me where the Constitution says that the unbron have no rights.

reply from: Sigma

Not all of it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Citizens must be born, and the "privileges or immunities" refer to the Bill of Rights. The fetus is neither born nor is it considered a 'person' for the Fourteenth amendment. No part of the Constitution applies to the fetus.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment expanded equal protection to 'all persons', regardless of citizenship. i.e., a citizen of another country living in the U.S. was to have equal protection under the law. 'Person' does not equal 'citizen'. The unborn are not yet citizens under the existing definition of 'citizen'. However, if they can be legally defined as PERSONS, then they have all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution, according the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe said that the unborn are not persons and therefore have no protection. You have absolutely no legal backing for your position that, even IF the unborn ARE persons, they have no legal standing or protection. Not even Roe attempted to establish that breathtakingly inhumane position. Neither does the Constitution- again, the Fourteenth Amendment extends legal protection to all persons- not just all citizens. Thus the need for Roe to try to establish that the unborn are not PERSONS in order for abortion to be permitted.

reply from: Sigma

The Fourteenth gives equal protection of State law, not the Constitution. It is true that part of the Fourteenth would apply to the fetus were the fetus considered a ‘person’, but not the entirety.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not true. Roe established that no State has sufficient justification to restrict abortion before viability. Were Roe to decide that the fetus indeed had a ‘right to life’, all it would say is that States can restrict abortion if they choose to. States can also choose not to, since they can uphold the woman’s right to privacy, which is a Constitutional right.

reply from: MaleNurse

Hey Sigma, have you ever had an abortion? I'm curious
Because I'm new to this group, I'm not familiar with you, I don't want to waste your time on ground that has already been covered. The draw back to a written dialogue is the lack of percieving a persons "tone". So what gives? Have you had an abortion or not?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

It was in the Roe decision.

None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

The Constitution was not meant to apply to those not born.

Since when has Roe become the Constitution?

reply from: Sigma

I very much appreciate the direct and honest question, but I'm afraid I don't talk about myself much if at all.

I don't believe either my gender or my past history is directly relevant. If it becomes so, I may reveal more of myself.

reply from: Sigma

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution.

reply from: MaleNurse

Kinda like "Pat" on SNL?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

That is true. However, can you honestly tell me that Federal law ever attempted to restrict the right to life, liberty and property without due process? No. It wasn't an issue. State law was, and that is what the Fourteenth dealt with. That doesn't mean there was no rightful protection for all persons under Federal law.

Well, of course not, the Fourteenth Amendment addresses several issues.

All right. Same thing. Roe had to try to establish that the unborn were not persons in order to strike down State laws prohibiting it. Same thing as permitting abortion. You've made no point.

Nope. If the right to life of the unborn had been established by Roe, then any right to privacy regarding abortion would not apply. Read it. If you want a copy, I have one. I'd be happy to copy it in its entirety and mail it to you.

The only allusion to privacy in the Constitution is in the Third and Fourth Amendments. They have nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy or abortion. Only with the quartering of soldiers; unreasonable search and seizure; probable cause for a search warrant. There's no way that a right to privacy concerning an abortion decision can be gleaned from that. Roe was bad law. Even some abortion supporters admit that.

reply from: bradensmommy

grrr....I'm done even debating with him/she/it anymore. They are too immature for me, can't figure out what sex they are, and rephrase what they "mean"

Its like telling my 6 month old that the sky is blue, he just looks at me and goes "pffffffttt"

reply from: Alexandra

That's where I use the word "freeloader."

My argument against the baby being a parasite is the fact that the mother's body was designed to incubate said baby!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

That's where I use the word "freeloader."

My argument against the baby being a parasite is the fact that the mother's body was designed to incubate said baby!

Indeed! This whole parasite thing is so intellectually dishonest. Women are MEANT to have children.

reply from: yoda

You mean "Androgynous Pat"? Yeah, that's about right for Siggy.....

reply from: yoda

Which is true for all females, both human and animal. Which is what makes it so very strange to me that anyone would compare gestation with artifically removing someone's organ and giving them to someone else. It's just bizarre. It's also bizarre that anyone would claim that such a natural and NECESSARY process gave mothers the moral right to kill their own children in the womb.

How bizarre and perverted is that?

reply from: yoda

And so far, no one has found any other way to come into this world!

reply from: MaleNurse

Go Army !
(I went to Kuwait, Air Defense, been to Ft Campbell, mostly at Ft Bliss)

reply from: Sigma

MaleNurse,

A bit different. They never directly asked Pat, while you have asked me. I am refusing to say, at least for now.

laurissamarcotte,

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying the Federal Gov't never deprives a person of these things? The Fifth Amendment says much the same thing and applies to the Federal Gov't, but does not include the Equal Protection Clause.

That's my point. The fetus would never have full Constitutional protection even if it were considered a person, because it must be born for that.

It is an important distinction, imo. Overturning Roe returns the issue to the State, it does not make abortion illegal. Roe was solely about whether a State has sufficient justification to restrict abortion.

Read... what? The Constitution? I have my own copy, but thank you.

The 'right to privacy' would still apply, the State would have justification to violate it to protect the 'right to life' of the fetus. That was the question in Roe. Were the fetus to have this 'right to life', the State would have jurisdiction to say whether abortion was justified killing or not, and they can justify it to protect the woman's rights. Murder and killing laws fall under State laws.

I must say that there is no explicit ‘right to life’ in the Constitution, either.

Justice Harlan once wrote: [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This
liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.

In a similar way this 'right to privacy' was found among various Constitutional protections, and was extended to reproductive matters when, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court recognized the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

This is opinion, and Roe is not a law.

bradensmommy

I am not sure why you do then. If you do not wish to debate, then I would suggest you do not create threads mischaracterizing what I say and that you do not reply to my posts. I certainly have no interest in debating you when you are insulting and mischaracterize what I say.

reply from: yoda

OF COURSE they asked Pat! And he/she/it got angry! Just like you do!

reply from: laurissamarcotte



That's my point. The fetus would never have full Constitutional protection even if it were considered a person, because it must be born for that.

The remaining Sections of the 14th Amendment have nothing to do with protection, so this argument is pointless.

It is an important distinction, imo. Overturning Roe returns the issue to the State, it does not make abortion illegal. Roe was solely about whether a State has sufficient justification to restrict abortion.

That is true. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal.

No. The text of Roe v. Wade. I have it in book form.

No. According to Roe, the state would not have that jurisdiction if the personhood of the unborn were established. It says: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life' would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." States would be prohibited from depriving the unborn, as persons, of life- as stated by the 14th Amendment.

I must say that there is no explicit ‘right to life’ in the Constitution, either.

The specific phrase 'right to life' is not necessary in the context of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Those two Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. How ironic that Roe v. Wade does contain the phrase 'right to life' (see above).

These are judicial opinions, and therefore are reversible.

This is opinion, and Roe is not a law.

I didn't say Roe was "a law", I said it was "bad law". Litigation of the Supreme Court can fall under the broad aggregation of "law", even though it is not "a law" as in one passed by legislative process.

[

reply from: bradensmommy

Ft. Campbell is where we are stationed now!

reply from: bradensmommy

I am not sure why you do then. If you do not wish to debate, then I would suggest you do not create threads mischaracterizing what I say and that you do not reply to my posts. I certainly have no interest in debating you when you are insulting and mischaracterize what I say.

I would if you would stop talking like you are a kindergartener and implying juvenile views and beliefs. Debating with you is like a 3 year old putting up his hands to his ears and stomping his feet yelling "not listening, not listening"

I would quote you some more but you'd just change things around again.

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte,

Agreed. This does not automatically mean that abortion is disallowed, however.

Not just the rest of the Fourteenth, but the rest of the Bill of Rights. Only one section can possibly apply to the fetus, the rest refer to citizens.

Oh? Now that would be interesting to have, where did you acquire one? I have an electronic version that I like because it is searchable, but a book would be interesting.

This is commonly misunderstood. Consider again the question of Roe. The appellant was not asserting that abortion was legal directly, but that the State did not have any justification to restrict it. That assertion would indeed collapse if the fetus were considered a person because the State would then have sufficient justification to restrict it.

The quote does not say that States cannot allow abortion in that case, it says that the assertion that States have no justification would not be true in that case. They would have the jurisdiction to either allow or disallow abortion were the fetus considered a ‘person’. States have jurisdiction over nearly all murder laws, and the States determine what killing is justified, even the killing of those with a ‘right to life’.

A ‘right to life’ is interpreted. Similarly, a ‘right to privacy’ is interpreted.

Yes, this is true. However, they represent sound reasoning that is used in other cases. It is part of the justification and reasoning for a 'right to privacy'.

Ah, I can accept that use.

bradensmommy,

And yet you continue to complain. If this is your belief it does not reflect well on you to continue to reply to me. Who is more the fool, the fool or the fool who follows?

Take Tam's advice and just ignore me. You truly make yourself look foolish the more you continue this.

I have changed nothing of my posts

reply from: tjlsmom

Oh? Now that would be interesting to have, where did you acquire one? I have an electronic version that I like because it is searchable, but a book would be interesting.

Here's the publisher's info: Running Press Book Publishers, 125 S. 22nd St., Philadelphia, PA 19103

This is commonly misunderstood. Consider again the question of Roe. The appellant was not asserting that abortion was legal directly, but that the State did not have any justification to restrict it. That assertion would indeed collapse if the fetus were considered a person because the State would then have sufficient justification to restrict it.

The quote does not say that States cannot allow abortion in that case, it says that the assertion that States have no justification would not be true in that case. They would have the jurisdiction to either allow or disallow abortion were the fetus considered a ‘person’. States have jurisdiction over nearly all murder laws, and the States determine what killing is justified, even the killing of those with a ‘right to life’.
And Roe v. Wade specifically DISAGREED with Roe's assertion that the state had no justification to restrict abortion.

And I must disagree with you in the strongest possible way re the powers of the states should personhood be established for the unborn. The Roe decision DOES say that states COULD NOT allow abortion if personhood were ever to be established for the unborn. There is no room at all for misunderstanding, and there has BEEN no misunderstanding of it on the part of those who wish to establish legal protection for the unborn. The above quote from Roe says plainly that the 14th Amendment would apply if personhood were established for the unborn.

Regardless of Roe, personhood could- very easily- and should, be legally established for the unborn, so that the 5th and 14th Amendments would be applied to them without question or contest.

reply from: Sigma

Thank you I plan on looking on Amazon.com to see if it is there.

True, the Court disagreed that the State had no interest, but also disagreed that the State had sufficient interest. What I see is this:

The District Court held that the appellee failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Texas statute's infringement upon Roe's rights was necessary to support a compelling state interest

Oh? Where? The quote provided does not say that. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t. The case reads:

Appellant, as has been indicated, claims an absolute right that bars any state imposition of criminal penalties in the area.
...
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment

This quote refers specifically to the question of Roe. It says that the Court would have to decide in favor of the State, who asserts that they have a “compelling interest” in restricting abortion. All this would say is that any State that wants to restrict abortion has sufficient justification to infringe upon the woman's right to do so.

Yes, all States would be obligated to protect the ‘right to life’ of the fetus, but killing can be justified by States even so. It would be up to the individual States since it is within their jurisdiction. They can, if they choose, uphold the woman’s rights instead of infringing upon them.

Having a ‘right to life’ does not guarantee that abortion is always disallowed anymore than you and I having a ‘right to life’ guarantees we cannot be purposefully and lawfully killed. The situations we can be lawfully killed in vary from State to State.

Obviously this is opinion.

reply from: tjlsmom

Oh? Where? The quote provided does not say that. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t. The case reads:

Appellant, as has been indicated, claims an absolute right that bars any state imposition of criminal penalties in the area.
...
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment

This quote refers specifically to the question of Roe. It says that the Court would have to decide in favor of the State, who asserts that they have a “compelling interest” in restricting abortion. All this would say is that any State that wants to restrict abortion has sufficient justification to infringe upon the woman's right to do so.

Yes, all States would be obligated to protect the ‘right to life’ of the fetus, but killing can be justified by States even so. It would be up to the individual States since it is within their jurisdiction. They can, if they choose, uphold the woman’s rights instead of infringing upon them.

I don't think your second quote above from Roe applies only to the first quote. Read the last part again: "....the fetus' right to life would then be GUARANTEED (capitalization added) specifically by the Amendment." That assertion was not meant to apply only to Jane Roe's specific argument that the State had NO justification to restrict abortion. Guaranteed means guaranteed. If the case collapses due to personhood of the fetus (no matter the specific arguments of Roe), then the right to life is guaranteed.

You or I must be given due process of law (a trial by jury, conviction, and sentence of death) before we could legally be killed. Or, as in the case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a series of court decisions could cause us to lawfully be killed. That was a horrible miscarriage of justice carried out by the courts. But at least there was some sort of "due process". I don't think due process means a State deciding to allow abortion under certain circumstances- just like due process doesn't allow a State to decide it's okay to kill a certain class of persons under certain conditions.

reply from: Sigma

Saying If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses applies only to Roe's assertion, however.



I addressed this. I said: Having a ‘right to life’ does not guarantee that abortion is always disallowed anymore than you and I having a ‘right to life’ guarantees we cannot be purposefully and lawfully killed

Yes, the fetus would have a right to life, but this does not automatically make abortion illegal.

Actually that's exactly what procedural due process allows. Procedural due process is when the State uses established and lawful means to create law. And yes, it falls under State jurisdiction to decide it's ok for people to kill others in certain situations.

reply from: yoda

Afraid you're going to be attacked by an enraged fetus, Sig? "Justifiable homicide" only applies where there is a threat presented by the victim, what threat do you imagine a fetus will present to you?

It's all about killing the babies for you, isn't it Sig?

reply from: AshMarie88

Afraid you're going to be attacked by an enraged fetus, Sig? "Justifiable homicide" only applies where there is a threat presented by the victim, what threat do you imagine a fetus will present to you?

It's all about killing the babies for you, isn't it Sig?

Sadly, it's always about death for them. That's what "choice" has extended to.

reply from: yoda

Yep. They're ashamed to admit their fascination with killing babies, so they call it "choice" instead.

reply from: tjlsmom

Sigma, did you ever read 1984? In my opinion, you would adopt the language of "newspeak" without much trouble at all.

reply from: Sigma

And yet pro-life people seem to have no problem embracing “doublethink”

How is what you quoted an example of newspeak?

reply from: tjlsmom

If anyone is still reading this topic, I just viewed my post from earlier today, and saw that I am listed as a "Junior Member". I'm not sure how my profile got established that way (probably because I neglected to put my birthdate in?), but to avoid confusion I should say that I'm not in the "Junior" age group (I assume that it refers to the age of the member). I have two teenage daughters who post on here regularly, and that's how I got involved- but apparently didn't take time to set up my profile correctly. (Oops!) If anyone knows how to correct this, please let me know- I just went back and inserted my birthday on my profile page, so maybe that will do it.

reply from: Sigma

It actually refers to how many posts you have made, not your age. I'm not necessarily a senior, I've simply posted enough to qualify as a "senior member".

reply from: tjlsmom

And yet pro-life people seem to have no problem embracing “doublethink”

How is what you quoted an example of newspeak?

Oh, there you are Sigma. (I almost used "doublethink" instead of "newspeak" in my post, but was not certain that term was actually in the book.)

I may end up having to dig the book out of a box in the attic, but I believe "newspeak" occurred when people in the book would make a self-conradictory statement. i.e. something like "We are at war, but we are not engaged in a military conflict."
Originally posted by: Sigma

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, the fetus would have a right to life, but this does not automatically make abortion illegal."

That is a self-contradictory statement, at least in spirit. If the personhood of the fetus were established in law, then the 5th and 14th Amendments would apply. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land- but subsequent interpretations of it are not. Neither would be the fact that up to the present, abortion has been a State matter. A Federal law could be passed protecting the Constitutional right to life of the fetus. In fact, that has been attempted at least since the mid-'90's. Also, a Constitutional Amendment could be passed guaranteeing that right to life.

No, I think you pro-choicers have the corner on "doublethink" as well! "Doublethink" results in "newspeak".

reply from: Sigma

That was doublethink if I remember correctly.

What you quoted is not self-contradictory. In practice today those with a 'right to life' may and are lawfully killed in certain situations.

reply from: tjlsmom

That was doublethink if I remember correctly.

I'll refer to the book when I get time. But I believe "doublethink" was when a person believed two contradictory things to be true simultaneously and wasn't even aware of the conradiction. Newspeak was the vocalization of such belief, I think- but again, I'll look it up.

What specifically are you referring to?

reply from: tjlsmom

Oh, okay. I may be a Junior Member from now on, then

Sorry to keep posting and then editing, but time waits for no one, so I tend to get in a hurry when posting.

Over and out (for today, probably until next week).

reply from: Sigma

Any situation that one may be lawfully killed in. It depends on the State so I cannot point to something that is true nationally. Some States allow citizens to kill those who attempt to dispossess them of property. Some States allow citizens to kill those who threaten them in public. Some allow killing when one reasonably believes one will come to bodily harm, some even allow killing of another just for being in your house, regardless of whether you feel threatened. In Florida, for example, the law assumes that an intruder is threatening and allows you to kill him, even if he is running for the door.

reply from: Tam

Wow, hey are you Tabitha and Laurissa's mom?? That is so cool. Welcome!!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Oh, okay. I may be a Junior Member from now on, then

Sorry to keep posting and then editing, but time waits for no one, so I tend to get in a hurry when posting.

Over and out (for today, probably until next week).

Hi mom?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Wow, hey are you Tabitha and Laurissa's mom?? That is so cool. Welcome!!

Oh yeah, we're a whole family of "fascist" and "extremist" pro-lifers.

reply from: Sigma

I replied before before you added this.

The power of Congress is strictly defined by the Constitution, so unless abortion was listed as an aspect Congress has power over it does not have power over that area. They have power over interstate commerce, which is how they weaseled abortion laws in the past. To regulate abortion there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment allowing Congress that power.

From http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-13-99.html
Feminist organizations were quick to denounce the Brzonkala result, but they would be wise to reconsider. You see, if Congress can't pass laws about college sex under its interstate commerce power, then Congress can't pass laws to restrict abortion by claiming that abortion "affects" interstate commerce. Medical procedures (such as "partial-birth abortion") performed within a single state are not "interstate commerce," and are even less likely to indirectly affect interstate commerce than does violence against women.
...
So long as Congress can legislate on any topic it wants, special interests will find a way to buy influence with Congress. But a Congress that does only what the Constitution allows it to do will have much less power to help special interests. That, of course, is exactly what the Framers had in mind when they set up a federal government of limited and enumerated powers in the first place.

From http://www.davekopel.com/CJ/OpEds/op081496.htm
The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to legislate on any topic Congress wants. Instead, Congress is given powers only on an enumerated list of subjects, such as bankruptcy law, federal property, taxes, the military, and "commerce among the several states." Nowhere on this list, of course, is authority to regulate medicine or abortion.
...
The Framers deliberately created a small federal government that would do a few important things (defend the country, protect interstate commerce, etc.) and do them well. The huge federal government that the politicians have created by abandoning the Framers' plans tries to do many things, and does them badly.

The result has been a government increasingly dangerous to individual liberty even as it seems increasingly incompetent to deal with important national problems. The bipartisan betrayal of limited government will only make the problem worse.

reply from: yoda

Regardless of all that verbage, congress can pass, and the states can ratify, any ammendment to the constitution they wish to.

reply from: tjlsmom

They sure can! I personally think that if the Life at Conception Act were to be passed by Congress - it has been repeatedly introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter of CA since at least 1995 - that would be the first step to legally establish 'personhood' for the unborn- just so that it would be perfectly clear that the the Constitutional guarantees of the right to life in the existing Amendments apply to the unborn. A Human Life Amendment would of course set it in stone.

reply from: tjlsmom

quote:

Section 8 reads: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.....

The people of the United States have seen it fitting and proper as per the Constituion for Congress to pass legislation pertaining to a whole host of issues ranging from Civil Rights (1964) to Americans With Disabilities (1990) to Social Security (1935). Unless someone can correct me, I presume that these all have to do with the 'general welfare of the United States'.

reply from: tjlsmom

Yes, I am! And thank you!!

reply from: tjlsmom

Hi sweetie!

reply from: Sigma

No, such things as the Civil Rights Act are enforced by specific Amendments which contain within their text allowances for Congress to enforce them.

reply from: tjlsmom

No, such things as the Civil Rights Act are enforced by specific Amendments which contain within their text allowances for Congress to enforce them.

Oh, really? What specific Amendments? I would like this info for the Social Security Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act as well.

reply from: Sigma

I'm not going to do all your research for you. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, Amendments Fifteen and Nineteen contain sections allowing Congress the power to enforce them with "appropriate legislation". The Civil Rights Act also, through the Courts, provided injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations.

reply from: tjlsmom

I'm not going to do all your research for you.

I didn't think there was anything to back up your claim, either.

reply from: tjlsmom

I'm not going to do all your research for you. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, Amendments Fifteen and Nineteen contain sections allowing Congress the power to enforce them with "appropriate legislation". The Civil Rights Act also, through the Courts, provided injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations.

The Civil Rights Act covered more than simply the right to vote. That is all that is addressed in the 15th and 19th Amendments. Also, the Civil Rights Act did not pertain to the right of women to vote, as does the 19th Amendment.

reply from: Sigma

I know, I included that in my post.

The Civil Rights Act also, through the Courts, provided injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations.

reply from: teddi

Err... don't think so.

<breaks into song>

"- and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ..."

pos·ter·i·ty n.
Future generations
All of a person's descendants.

Ok, so "descendant"
de·scen·dant n.
A person, animal, or plant whose descent can be traced to a particular individual or group

Ok, so "person"
per·son n.
A living human

<ends singing>
"do ordain and establish this consititution for the United States of America"

As far as you citing Roe as the *basis* for your argument that prenates do not deserve basic rights (the right to be unharmed)- how exactly does that work? When a different Supreme Court case is law of the land, shoud I cite that as my reasoning WHY abortion should be continued to be illegal? What then would you say?

Some other excellent and memorable SC quotes:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization," and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth A]mendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.

Interesting dissents:
"Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law...In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case"

"The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. "

Incidentally, the court did not proscribe itself to your argument Sig- that a mother has a right to detach herself, as clearly they said there was ground for limiting abortion after viability (which at the time was about 27/28 weeks (convient as it marked the beginning of the 3rd tri, however science has of course gotten ahead of the court's opinion and now viability stands at 23 weeks). I digress, my point is that, the court didn't uphold a "right" to detach in the 3rd trimester. Why not?

reply from: tjlsmom

I know, I included that in my post.

The Civil Rights Act also, through the Courts, provided injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations.

The 15th and 19th Amendments do not address discrimination in public accomodations; only voting rights. The Federal government, in passing the Civil Rights Act, for instance, has passed laws pertaining to matters not specifically outlined in the Constitution, except perhaps under the clause in Article I, Secion 8: "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". The fact that Congress can pass a law pertaining to discrimination in public accommodations points to the fact that Congress can pass a law pertaining to abortion. That was what we were originally discussing.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics