- 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
0
Posted on 5/9/22 at 5:22 am to AggieHank86
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-elbident, … that all men are endowed by the... oh you know.... the THING!
Stop giving every one a hard time Hank. Your back on the Board one day and your already like
quote:
*you're
BTW, fifth
quote:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Posted on 5/9/22 at 7:11 am to geauxkoo
quote:
geauxkoo
Posted on 5/9/22 at 7:25 am to geauxkoo
In not too distant past the majority of people looked at the birth of a child as a wanted blessing. God wanted us to reproduce.
Now a vocal minority fly in the Face of God disagreeing with his wishes of human reproduction . Jesus wept.
God's patience is much more than mine .
What I have a hard time understanding is how a person can disagree with God.
Now when the Supremes send roe v. wade back to the States many of these morons will violently riot. They will burn things, businesses will be looted. They may even attempt to come into residential/suburbia areas. Some may get shot/killed.
xiden* will make it worse.
Now a vocal minority fly in the Face of God disagreeing with his wishes of human reproduction . Jesus wept.
God's patience is much more than mine .
What I have a hard time understanding is how a person can disagree with God.
Now when the Supremes send roe v. wade back to the States many of these morons will violently riot. They will burn things, businesses will be looted. They may even attempt to come into residential/suburbia areas. Some may get shot/killed.
xiden* will make it worse.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 1:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No, both interpretations are equally “tortured.” Roe was jurisprudential nonsense, and so is your argument.
What a shocker. Hankabitch disagrees. Must suck to be you. Imagine for a second the Founding Fathers spelling out in plain language that the new country and government they are creating, free of the tyranny of monarchy and democracy, with liberty and justice as its pillars, doing in part for posterity (future generations) while simultaneously codifying the murder of those generations. Hankabitch believes that my interpretation is just as tortured. My interpretation comes from holding a few words in the Constitution. Remind me, how many pages were the opinions on Roe?
Posted on 5/9/22 at 1:28 pm to geauxkoo
Got to stop you. One is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The other is not.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 1:40 pm to troyt37
quote:I have seen no evidence that the Founding Fathers gave any thought whatsoever to the question of abortion or the role of the central government regarding that issue. Had they done so, I suspect that they would have said it was a matter for each State to decide for itself, whether the Congregationalists in Massachusetts, the Catholics in Maryland or the Anglicans in Virginia.
Imagine for a second the Founding Fathers ... codifying the murder of those generations
quote:Yes, it looks like a GED holder attempting to engage in Constitutional scholarship.
Hankabitch believes that my interpretation is just as tortured
This post was edited on 5/9/22 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 5/9/22 at 1:40 pm to geauxkoo
You are obviously very wrong. Media is having to work to hard to get people to cooperate in the protest.
Not too many are showing up, especially when compared to the US population.
Not too many are showing up, especially when compared to the US population.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 1:56 pm to geauxkoo
quote:
Just willy-nilly overturning Roe-vs-Wade would be akin to overturning the 2nd ammendment.
What Amendment covers the right to abortion? I forgot.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 2:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You were objectively wrong. Just own it and move on.
Wow.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 2:05 pm to geauxkoo
Lol one of the cleaner did upvote to downvote ratios I’ve seen here. Needless to say, you’re wrong.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 3:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I have seen no evidence that the Founding Fathers gave any thought whatsoever to the question of abortion or the role of the central government regarding that issue.
That’s kind of the point. We are pretty much in agreement regarding Roe, you just seem to want to ignore the fact that what the FF were doing was at least in part for future generations, and explicitly said so. I think that strongly implies that they would have been adamantly opposed to anyone killing those future generations, even their own mothers.
This post was edited on 5/9/22 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 5/9/22 at 3:19 pm to troyt37
quote:That is a gap in logic which would give even the great Evel Knieval pause before making the jump.
the FF were doing was at least in part for future generations, and explicitly said so. I think that strongly implies that they would have been adamantly opposed to anyone killing those future generations, even their own mothers
In the late 18th Century, it is reasonable to assert that the majority of the population still held to the "quickening" theory of ensoulment, which would indicate that they likely would NOT have considered a 16-cell blastocyst to be among their "progeny."
You are doing what the worst of the Progressives do ... deciding the way that they WANT the Constitution to read and then ignoring all logic to find that desire in the text.
This post was edited on 5/9/22 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 5/9/22 at 3:22 pm to geauxkoo
quote:
Just willy-nilly overturning Roe-vs-Wade would be akin to overturning the 2nd ammendment.
Good grief man!
Posted on 5/9/22 at 3:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
That is a gap in logic which would give even the great Evel Knieval pause before making the jump. In the late 18th Century, it is reasonable to assert that the majority of the population still held to the "quickening" theory of ensoulment, which would indicate that they likely would NOT have considered a 16-cell blastocyst to be among their "progeny." You are doing what the worst of the Progressives do ... deciding the way that they WANT the Constitution to read and then ignoring all logic to find that desire in the text.
I bet large percentage of 18th century people talked to their children in the womb the same way we do now. I bet 18th century mothers noted activity in those children when they did so, just like my wife did. Can’t say whether they considered the baby a person or not, but I bet the overwhelming majority considered it a life.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 3:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In the late 18th Century, it is reasonable to assert that the majority of the population still held to the "quickening" theory of ensoulment, which would indicate that they likely would NOT have considered a 16-cell blastocyst to be among their "progeny."
so assuming FF wrote that with your reasonable assertion of what their interpretation would have been... we're talking like 6 weeks.
that really isnt a great interpretation for pro-choice advocates. liberals say something like 6 weeks (texas) is de facto banning of abortion and is unconstitutional. but according to you that would reasonably be their interpretation.
Posted on 5/9/22 at 3:43 pm to AMS
quote:Excuse me, please?
your reasonable assertion of what their interpretation would have been... we're talking like 6 weeks.
Quickening normally occurs around 18 weeks. Where are you getting "6 weeks?"
This post was edited on 5/9/22 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 5/9/22 at 4:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Excuse me, please?
Quickening normally occurs around 18 weeks. Where are you getting "6 weeks?"
you are now referring to a modern understanding of 'quickening', but this is different than what you specified as 'quickening ensoulment theory' which had a different understanding in the late 1700s than the modern term you are now pivoting to. so lets not apply modern connotation with the one that would have been prevalent in the 18th century.
aristotle worked on that theory you referred to and is something the FF had likely studied. His ensoulment theory held 40days for males 80-90 for females.
this would be the prevalent understanding until 15th or so century where the connotation shifted more to ensoulment at conception, until officially held by Judeo-Christian churches in mid-late 1800s. lets not pretend churches did not have a strong influence on laws and gov which foundational basis for FF.
so the quickening ensoulment theory you brought up would have been widely thought of being somewhere between conception and 12 weeks at the latest in the late 18th century.
This post was edited on 5/9/22 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 5/9/22 at 4:34 pm to AMS
quote:I do not consider Blackstone (1723-80) to be "modern," but he WAS the preeminent authority on the common law in the 18th century. He said that "life... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." That typically is at about 18 weeks.
you are now referring to a modern understanding of 'quickening'
I suppose we could discuss whether a group consisting (largely) of 18th century lawyers would put more stock in Aristotle's philosophical ruminations or in Blackstone's legal analysis, but I don't see that as being especially productive.
This post was edited on 5/9/22 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 5/9/22 at 5:59 pm to geauxkoo
Is this a record for downvotes?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News