| I'm back and have revewed the comment of this forum to my last messages. Okay, we will not talk religion. We will assume that rights have no moral bearing and even if they did it was not due to a religious belief system. You all want to stick just with biological facts as well as political documents. That is okay - mind, body, but no spirit. I guess I can grasp that.
Now let's talk turkey. One of you said that I should not make non-meainful comparisons to suggest that a turkey egg is as important as a human egg. Needless to say under law the turkey has no right to life. That is because of the same kind of thinking that allowed for slavery - that on spcies or one race is somehow sacred and all other life forms are of little importance.
Biologically speaking there is a lot of common denominators between how other creatures develope and grow and how humans develope and grow. That is why they experiment on mice to teast stuff for human use. That is why we learn a lot about the human speices via the study of nature and other animals.
Now Pale Rider did not dodge the turkey question and gets an A-plus for having the correct answer, the turkey and the egg are both the same thing - that is why no one knows what came first the chicken or the egg - because they are both part of the same circular "process".
Logically then the human egg (meaning one that is activated) is the same as an adult human being.
But lets dodge that for a moment and talk turkey again. And this is a major point that must be accounted for in rebuttle. If an animal (one that is close in DNA to that of a human being ) cannot have human rights then what makes the animal different then a human being. (remember both have flesh and blood made out of DNA combinations). What are the real differences between humans and all other life forms on earth? Once you establish that in an absolute manner then you can determine if and when an human egg reaches that stage where it do the human things that animals cannot do, or whatever? (keep in mind that any amimal can have individual DNA). Does consciousness of a certain type come into play in that respect?
Then we can turn to the legal paperwork. Let us say it reads "all humans are created with the right to life". The next question is this - after life is formed at conception and reaches the age of birth, and then grows to the age of "knowing right from wrong" do you still have those right unconditionally.
Or can your choice of action change or cancel those rights - making them legally of non-effect.
Up until a short time ago a minor could not be judged the same as an adult. But as we progressed we took much of that concept away and so now some minors can be tried as adults - not sure how low the court system can go (age wise). But what if a mother was killed giving child birth because the kid came out the wrong way - well - the infant could be tried for murder because of its acitons (that might sound nuts but know what the law might soon dictate if they rule "by word of law" only and not by commen sense (no activist judges). So at what time or age should our laws be applicable both for or agenst a human? If you can be protected under law you can also be prosecuted under law, I would assme.
Next - fellow Americans - let us examine agian very closely what is self - evident about the right to life law.
It is a self-evident turth that you do not have the right to life on death row. It is a self-evident truth that innocent children in Iraq do not have the right to life otherwise we would not drop bombs on them. (and please, do not claim such is accidental - be real). It is a self-evident truth that if you bears arms in a public place and do not drop that weapon at the say-so of the police that you lost your right to life (even if you are hard of hearing). Okay - war is war. So domestically we can note that that the real interpertation of that law is that peace loving people have a right to be protected from violent and agressive people - which is like unto "survival of most fit" only reversed to aid the survival of the meak (who get stronger middle-men to insure that right for them) whilch middle man is the government. Needless to say the self-evident turth is that the strong or well armed person would not need such protectionist rights, only the underdogs and the meak. Namely the beloved liberals among you.
It is also self-evident that a baby (before and just after birth) is meak and defenceless. (but perhaps not yet a liberal - depending on DNA mapping - we might someday know how to predict such thngs at birth - and even re-create the outcome with gene manipulation).
Next, although we could say that an unborn has the right to life based on those findings we must also comprehend that the mother is also involved in that experience. And that is where women's rights also must come into play. Giving birith is very painful in many cases which is simular to having a terrorest torture you - it would seem she would have some sort of say-so in the matter.
Something the mostly male law makers cannot comperhend.
It is also self-evident that many people died so you could maintian the right to life, which is a paradox for sure. If all the youngsters demanded the right to life they would not join the army (or even the police force) and then where would you be? So is our true hero rejecting thier rights?
Why would they do that? Because they hold other "rewards" or political opinions as much more important then the right to life.
Next we got the Patriot Act #2 which the Bush people are now drafting and will get congress to pass. Once passed the Federal government will have authority to define domestic terrorism and which groups can be identifed as such. Domestic terrorism would be defined as certain organizations that normally protest the activities of the government in an aggressive way (or whom the Feds think might have that potential). Namely anti-war groups and environmentalists who protest what industry might be doing to endanger the right to life of nature and the human population.
If they break into a turkey farm and liberate the birds because some industry is miss-treating their livestock then the Feds could classify the protesters as "domestic industrial terrorists" and place them under arrest. Under the mandates (soon to be published) of the Patriot Act #2 those arrested would not have any rights (to get a lawyer or whatever). Under the mandates of the new Act mentioned "anyone belonging to any domestic terrorest organization, once so named, could be rounded-up and the sentence for such a crime is DEATH. (so if you belong to any groups now is a good time to cancel your subsciption and donations). So that will pretty much blow away (my opinion) most of the rights we now believe that we have unless we are willing to conform out of fear to the new mandate - and the transformation of current "freedom" to a kind of dictatorship which is operated by a "collective" elite group instead of just one leader.
So fine and dandy, give the unborn their rights, but beware, the wolf stands just outside the womb waiting to consume them anyway, as freedom vanishes in the name of freedom.
Pale Rider - You will win the debate if the only thing that "matters" in the determination of how the law should be interpreted is the biological make-up of a living stem cell generated into effect at the moment of conception.
Star Boy - If we reject the influence of the religious majority and their pressure to push for a new interpretation of the law into effect, and if we go just with the mainstream thinking of biology and science then we must grasp the concept of the totality of the biological process. Namely, that any tiny micro-organisem could evolve over billions of years into a human being - then we would have to worry about that and thusly extend the light to life so that the law covers everything microscopic that might have a chance to evolve. In other words, if we interpret life as a process then we must protect that process to insure that all future humans can arrive here safely. Or we can forget law and order when speaking in biological terms and just stick with the "random chance" theory.
From a political standpoint we should think about this concept. We underdogs must limit ourself to trying to interpret what some other person said, namely who ever we think is the authority. And then we must conform and follow orders as they are dictated. Likewise if a woman as authority over her own body then she can dictate what happens in that body and can speak on behalf of any life form in her body. If our leader (leaders) have power over life and death and who gets what then by that same standard a woman can assume that authority - otherwise we got a double-standard which would be hypocritical in nature.
Technosoul. |