- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned I had no idea that abortions were that common.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:38 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:38 am to wackatimesthree
quote:Read the post again.quote:So since this is a philosophical discussion and not a biological one, you won't mind a hypothetical.
You can only "oppress" something with rights, and philosophically I disagree with the premise that "rights" can vest in something (an early-term fetus) with less higher brain function than an earthworm.
So under your philosophical framework, a person who had a medical coma induced under which his brain function regressed to less than an earthworm, but who had an 80% chance of waking up from the coma after nine months and returning to normal brain function would have no rights and could not be oppressed and was fair game for being killed at wil during the nine month coma period?
In your hypothetical, the rights would already have vested before the coma. Under our Constitution, rights can only be removed through the operation of Due Process.
Is it THEORETICALLY possible that a court would ignore your evidence that this person will certainly recover full function in a few months and STILL remove his Constitutional protections after notice and hearing? Sure. But, candidly, I have more faith in our judicial system than most people on this forum.
Some gadfly will doubtless assert that I am saying philosophy should determine when "life" begins, but of course I have said nothing of the sort. No rational person would argue with the maxim that an embryo (certainly a fetus) constitutes biological "life." Some people just think that the vesting of rights should be coextensive with the existence of biological "life." I do not agree.
quote:No. As I have said, the system is working as designed. I personally see the results in many Anti-Abortion states as representing "bad policy," but that is the very nature of HAVING "50 laboratories of democracy."quote:Is your whole whine not based on laws restricting abortion against the will of a majority?
Why do you see that as a "problem?"
quote:That is a very broad question. Once rights have vested, an individual certainly has a negative right not to be killed (as opposed to a positive right to live forever, which would include a "right" to be provided medical care, etc.). The interesting (and challenging) question is determination of when that right will vest. I suspect that I see that right as vesting somewhat later than you see it vesting.
Do you deny that human beings have a right to live?
This post was edited on 11/20/23 at 10:21 am
6
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:40 am to Antoninus
quote:
The interesting (and challenging) question is determination of when that right will vest.
AggieTonius trying DESPERATELY not to use the word "Sapience".....
You are such a buffoon.....
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:42 am to Antoninus
quote:
The interesting (and challenging) question is determination of when that right will vest.
Yes, repeat your idiotic stance that Philosophers should be involved in determining when "life" begins.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:43 am to Antoninus
quote:
Once rights have vested, an individual certainly has a negative right not to be killed
Its amazing how many women kill their children and think its socially acceptable.
They need to be shamed to oblivion.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:49 am to Tiger BTT
This will be the issue that holds the GOP back for the next 10yrs. This thread is proof of that.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:51 am to Tiger BTT
quote:
25 percent of adult women have had an abortion.
I'm surprised it's not higher in this day and age. Seems like liberals celebrate it and even try to get pregnant so they can abort the baby as some kind of sick ritual to show their loyalty to their cause and like it or not quietly some conservatives are having abortions as well though not nearly on the grand scale as liberals.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:55 am to hawkeye007
quote:
This will be the issue that holds the GOP back for the next 10yrs.
bullshite.
Election fraud is the issue holding us back.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 9:58 am to oogabooga68
So every race that the GOP has lost since the overturn has been election fraud? You just brought up the second biggest problem with the GOP. Thanks for helping me out with that
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:04 am to Antoninus
quote:
I have more faith in our judicial system than most people on this forum.
Further evidence of your abject stupidity.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:27 am to Antoninus
quote:
But, candidly, I have more faith in our judicial system than most people on this forum.
No, you're a Narcissist and a bootlicker.
Because you have a Law Degree, you assume any profession you belong to is sacrosanct.
It is an admission of your Sociopathy.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:28 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Further evidence of your abject stupidity.
At this point is anymore needed?
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:29 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Because you have a Law Degree, you assume any profession you belong to is sacrosanct. It is an admission of your Sociopathy.
I've suspected this is foundational to the retarded behavior of slo, cwill, Hank, and our favorite southern educated lawyer.
They'll assume the most asinine positions imaginable rather than accept the hard truth the institution around which they've built their lives is trash.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:30 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
They'll assume the most asinine positions imaginable rather than accept the hard truth the institution around which they've built their lives is trash.
This is brilliantly stated....
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:30 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Lawyers will assume the most asinine positions imaginable rather than accept the hard truth the institution around which they've built their lives is trash.
I may use this for my sig quote....
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:40 am to Antoninus
quote:
In your hypothetical, the rights would already have vested before the coma.
No, not according to what you said. You said you didn't ascribe rights to an organism without the brain function of an earthworm.
And rights can be lost, such as the right to vote or bear arms.
There is no logical difference between the two. Both are temporarily near-brain dead and both will likely gain brain function.
You said we were speaking philosophically, not purely legally, so it's irrelevant what a court might nor might not do.
quote:
No rational person would argue with the maxim that an embryo (certainly a fetus) constitutes biological "life."
Shall I start posting definitions from medical sources? Because a "fetus" is clearly defined as a human being in a certain stage of pre-adulthood development, just like an infant or an adolescent is.
The people who write medical textbooks are not rational? They consider a fetus to be a live human being genetically distinct from its mother.
quote:
That is a very broad question.
Not really, when properly phrased (thanks for that and I agree that you are correct that it is a right to not be killed rather than a right to life.)
And you didn't answer it. You implied that an unborn human hasn't been vested with rights yet, but we are vested with rights at different ages. We don't get the right to vote until 18, for example.
So despite your insistence that this is not the case, it really does come down to when you think human beings should be vested with the most fundamental right possible.
I think at the most fundamental stage possible.
When do you think?
This post was edited on 11/20/23 at 10:42 am
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:44 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:I cannot speak for any other attorney, but I readily-acknowledge that our judicial system has its flaws, and I agree that they should be addressed as they are identified.quote:I've suspected this is foundational to the retarded behavior of slo, cwill, Hank, and our favorite southern educated lawyer.
Because you have a Law Degree, you assume any profession you belong to is sacrosanct. It is an admission of your Sociopathy.
I also think that our system (flaws and all) is better than mob justice and vigilantism.
The prosecution of Rittenhouse and the Arbery killers provides a case study in the notion that finding the correct "remedy" for a flaw in the system is extraordinarily difficult. In both cases, the initial challenging issue was "prosecutorial discretion."
At one end of the spectrum, the Arbery prosecutor used her discretion to NOT prosecute three men who hunted and killed another human being for (at most) trespassing. MOST people now agree that she abused that discretion.
At the other end of the spectrum we have Rittenhouse (and the NYC subway guy, for that matter). MANY people feel that those prosecutors abused their discretion by BRINGING charges.
How do you give a DA the discretion to NOT prosecute a Rittenhouse, while preventing a prosecutor from refusing to prosecute the McMichael boys? Sorry, but there IS no easy answer.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:50 am to Antoninus
quote:
At one end of the spectrum, the Arbery prosecutor used her discretion to NOT prosecute three men who hunted and killed another human being for (at most) trespassing. MOST people now agree that she abused that discretion.
At the other end of the spectrum we have Rittenhouse (and the NYC subway guy, for that matter). MANY people feel that those prosecutors abused their discretion by BRINGING charges.
How do you give a DA the discretion to NOT prosecute a Rittenhouse, while preventing a prosecutor from refusing to prosecute the McMichael boys? Sorry, but there IS no easy answer.
Hey stupid, this isn't the Rittenhouse thread.
Maybe using two alters and shitposting back and forth to your self is too much to handle..
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:52 am to Antoninus
quote:
I also think that our system (flaws and all) is better than mob justice and vigilantism.
No, not always, moron.
Sometimes the mob gets it correct.
Again, this is the thread where you rabidly advocate for murdering children, not the Rittenhouse thread.
You need to post your wordvomit defense of the Judicial System in the appropriate thread.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:53 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, not according to what you said. You said you didn't ascribe rights to an organism without the brain function of an earthworm.
When he posted using his real name of AggieHank, he was stuck on the word "sapience" which can all assume was on his "Word of the Day" Calendar.
He won't use that word now for obvious reasons.
Posted on 11/20/23 at 10:56 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
When do you think?
He doesn't have the guts to make a definitive answer.
He ACTUALLY excoriated Biologists for having the NERVE for having an opinion when life actually begins, lamenting that it's too important a question to have such a "simplistic" answer, and that we should defer to Philosophers instead of relying on such a definite, binary answer to the problem...
Page 18 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News