Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Cephus Says who? You? The law specifically grants rights to humans who have been born. The laws grant a very limited number of rights to humans who have not been born. That's not likely to change any time soon. You're just wrong, as usual.

Yeah, says me. Want me to explain?

"...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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

This passage is from the Declaration of Independence. It was, and is a legal document, and it does have real bearing on this legal matter, and others.

The Declaration was, without a doubt, the constitutional law of this nation for certain purposes. It freed the people from their loyalty to the king of England for example. In fact, it was declared so by the judicial tribunals of this country. No American during the Revolutionary war, or since could be legally tried on this soil for treason to the king. It stands to reason that if the Declaration were the constitutional law of the nation for that purpose, then it was also the constitutional law for the purpose of recognizing and establishing, as law, the inalienable right of all Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does it not?

The lawfulness of the people disavowing their loyalty to the king was agreed upon by the people of this nation and that act was made legal by the instrument that declared that the rebellion; and it’s authority rested squarely upon, and was, in itself a consequence of the right that all men had to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the act of rebellion against the king was determined to be lawful, then it becomes very difficult to argue that the principles that legalized the act did not become the law. Furthermore, when the country ratified the act of freeing themselves from the crown, did they not also, by definition, ratify and acknowledge the principles that they declared made the revolution legal?

I need to stop for a moment to ask if you agree that for a time, the declaration was in principle, the law of the land for that time (1776)? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I am going to guess that you agreed because you seem to be a thoughtful individual who grasps concepts and ideas and isn’t prone to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So, whether the Declaration was the law for a year, or just one day, it established that in this nation, all men had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From that point forward, for anyone claiming otherwise, the burden falls upon them to establish that the right to life has been constitutionally taken away, and to do that, he (or she) is going to have to show a deliberate constitutional description of the particular individuals who have had their inalienable right to life abolished.

Simply stated, the people of this country, in the instrument by which they first announced their political independence from the king and declared their right to establish a government of their own also declared that the inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a ”SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”.

Self evident truths, except those which are explicitly denied are taken for granted and constitute a fundamental part of all constitutions, compacts and systems of government. If we did not take for granted self evident truths it would be impossible for any orderly government to be established because it would be impossible to make an actual inventory of all of the self evident truths that are to be taken into account in the administration of a government. This is especially true of governments as we have here in the US that are founded upon a contract. It is impossible in a contract of government to list all of the self evident truths that would have to be acted upon in the administration of the law and therefore they are all taken for granted EXCEPT for the ones that have been plainly denied.

The principle that self evident truths (even those not enumerated) make a part of all laws and contracts unless they are clearly refused is not only necessary to the very existence of a civil society, but it is a prerequisite to the administration of justice in each and every case that may arise out of a contract or other arrangement between individuals. As with government, it would be impossible for us to make contracts at all if it were going to be necessary to list each and every self evident truth that might have some bearing on their contract before a judge. Because of this, self evident truths are taken for granted out of legal necessity.

Governments have no more right to deny self evident truths than individuals in any case. To deny that self evident truths are part of the law is no different than arguing that self evident deception is part of the law.

So if, according to our founders, it is a self evident truth that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that truth must be present in all of our laws and all of our constitutions except in caes where it has been unmistakably and precicely denied.

At this point, it falls upon you to prove (if you wish to continue the argument) that the people of this country have at any time, in their constitution, or by any other means have retracted and denied the self evident truth that all men have an inalienable right to life.

And while you are at it, maybe you can show me where in the Constitution there is an explicit provision that denies an inalienable right to life to humans who are unborn. Absent such an explicit provision in the constitution, any state or federal law that restricts any group of individual's inalienable right to life would be patently unconstitutional.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Pale RIder Where is that condition encoded into law?

See Roe v Wade and others.

[Gilligan]

I think that life begins when that life isn't dependent on another life in order to live. Once a baby is born, if the mother dies the baby will still live. But, until it is born or at a stage where it can be born prematurely and be kept alive by modern medicine it cannot live on its own.

PLEATS & PATCHES ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY FOLD & SEAM
- Willie the Shake (Paraphrased)

The non-sequitur, oxymoron and prevarication being the mutually supportive, symbiotic triumvirate stooges that they are. This record has encountered, been accosted by and otherwise intersected a foreboding number of ballot boxers who are tandemly 'pro nuclear power' and 'pro life'. Word is that *'anything is possible'; whereas, the above balloteering example seems consummate proof countermanding *that clliche. (Still, the Geiger counter gagging, jugglers of nuclear bon bon's and other smiling death merchants continue to draw an ominously compromising, if not vigorously approving crowd.)

CULLING THE HERD-THINK MENTALITY, continued:

(Who started the rumor, 'You can't beat the devil'? <Is peacefully resting, winking a lot, alongside Stonewall Jackson and LightHorse Harry, in Grant's tomb? Wood eye lye 2 U?>)

It's likely, with regard to this topic, that many thoughtful persons have considered the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', cautiously misleading. Perhaps they are.

Is it unbearably moribund to pronounce the opposing elements here, pro abortion & anti abortion? In a not unpopular series of idioms, the terms 'life savers vs murderers', along with 'baby killers' vs 'SAVE THE CHILDREN!' ?

Too often there expedient, self righteous, poorly thought out judgments passed in these not uncommonly violent American ralley cries, ranging from affectionately employed, HUGGIES embracing aliases, to hateful sobriquets.

Upon scrutinization, who, after all, could be 'anti-life' (never mind the vermin, weeds and in-betweens here, is this issue not focused on human life in particular)?

In extremis the pro-abortionists are a bloc of so called baby murderers and the anti-abortionists are an opposing bloc of baby savers. It looks right on paper but very unfortunately, in the experiential field, it is altogether somenting else.

I may only hope that the Reader will reserve judgment upon me as a 'pro-choice' (pro abortion, baby killing) advocate, at least until after such Reader may honor Truly Yours with having read this missive, and given it at least more than a fleeting evaluation. Thank you. In expedient terms, Truly Yours considers himself among those who would - with a minimum of avoidable pains of all descriptions - contribute to, guard and defend that which benefits the most number of persons, for the longest period of time.

(Re: the difference between the Ideal - what a given culture holds up as it's standards of morality and behavior, and, the Idealogy - what a culture actually practices. The greater the distance/contrast between the Ideal & the Ideaology, the more lamentably avoidable - duplicitous, intrigue and double-talk generated- suffering of any such tolerance threshhold permeated society. Re: double-government; Orwell's 1984, Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD, THE MEDIA MONOPOLY, by B.H. Bagdikian, and THE 25 TOP CENSORED NEWS STORIES OF 2001.)

Not likely that any truly moralistic and thoughtful person (those ranks ar thinning rapidly?) perceives the too often ostentatious issue as being that simple. So Right vs So Wrong. Because, indeed, the issue is not - by any means - that simple. Aborting a fertilized egg any time - from conception to before the end of the first trimester - and beyond - is indeed a more or less tragic event, whether deliberately induced, or involuntarily experienced.

It seems the more affluent cultures tend to cast an unfounded, elitist-condescending, condemnative view on issues of abortion. Whereas, contingent - to abort, or not to abort - circumstances reveal that such apparently well defined decisions of forthcoming life and avoidable, premature death are not so well rectified in the light of globally impingent circumstances.

With a mortality rate applied to children under five years of age perishing at a rate of 35,000 daily... The 'pro-life' side of the issue may internally, personally, politically and/or externally proclaim that their will spares the - to be, or not to be - unborn and/or ungestated foetus/child. Whereas this otherwise meritorious intent countenances a rate of 35,000 daily- slow death - mortalities.

Those who care to, may check out the 'stats', on these losses as they add up in annual computation. Multiply that number by how many surviving people have cared for and loved and become bonded with that child, before it perishes, and therefore, how much - incalculable - suffering and heartbreak comes of that 'singular' - loss; how much nutrition that foredoomed child consumed before it perished, and how that lost nutrition, in a population controlled environment, may have been used to allow a born child to live a relatively normal, full life...

In that consideration, allow that pro abortionists are often berated as craven advocates of 'the quick fix'; whereas, in the global consideration of the above scenarios, we see in the so called 'anti-abortionist/pro-lifers' a penchant for disregarding the devastating consequences of - operative word:globally considered - 'pro-life' postures and the enormous parameters of suffering and grief that are 'traded' for 'a clear conscience'.

It is a fact that there is indeed, 'another life', within a pregnant woman, on the other hand, that life is altogether in her custody - quite literally a part of her [I Behavioral authorities agree, a born child identifies itself with - as being/does not differentiate her/his self from - its mother, for at least a year after its birth)[/i]... whether she can afford to pre-or post natally sustain it, whether it is foreordained to premature slow death, or not. Neither the life support system of mother or the life she is supporting, as a rule, is not destined to hear of (- what is otherwise, in the sprawl of middle class+ societies across the world, become the legal - PAMPERS sanctified, embraced and juggled - sanctuary: Roe vs Wade.

This record, for example, can and has argued - very effectively (so I've been assuaged by others) - for and against both sides of this often bitterly subjected , inevitably solemn issue. Not unlike the tragic consequences of intense, characteristically emotion saturated disagreement: warfare per se, there is herein, a real - mighty sobering, thought provoking - question:
...will it ever be resolved, or, is their some middle ground the opposing camps may share in relative peace and understanding?

Until further notice, the issued acrimony, shows no signs of resolution, this record may only hope that it has and will continue to contribute whatever further understanding might be imparted, indeed, on both sides of this complex, inherently incongruous astringent and melancholy issue. A helpful closing thought here, may be expressed in the respectfully offered advisory that decision making with regard to abort, or not to abort, unequivocally vary with each and every individual circumstance.

Are not circumstances a very important factor in any such considerations, per selected, individual situation. What is a reasonable and merciful decision in one case, may be an unreasonable and merciless decision in another. In the course of world events, are not decisions based on varying circumstances - for better and worse - a way of life?

In discussions such as that in this thread (from which Truly Yours has learned much), are we not obliged - per individual case - to recognize and compensate for what is all to often the irony of a seemingly wrong decision, actually being the better of the alternative, and conversely?
..........................

AND NOW THIS

So far this notebook has yet to record any bumpersticker or T-shirt reading: YOU CAN'T BE PRO-LIFE & PRO-NUCLEAR POWER AT THE SAME TIME. Whereas, ought there not be? (Andy Warhol - where are you when we need you?)
........................


(Oke. Respectfully regarding the issue of whether human life begins from the moment of conception, or at the moment of birth...
My Aunt Eleanor <and her keyboard, Matilda> says that life doesn't begin until all the dogs and cats die and the kids grow up and settle down somewhere else. )

Now. There you have it. That wasn't so challenging, was it?


Thank you for reading this missive.

Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson
World's Number One Einstein Apprentice & Groupie.
Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Gorgo See Roe v Wade and others.

You are talking court decisions, not the law, as in legislation. As much as liberals hate to admit it, they are different things. Liberalism becomes part of our society via judges. Little, if any is actual law.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: bandaid I think that life begins when that life isn't dependent on another life in order to live. Once a baby is born, if the mother dies the baby will still live. But, until it is born or at a stage where it can be born prematurely and be kept alive by modern medicine it cannot live on its own.

If you are removed from your natural environement, you will die also. Does that somehow mean that you are not human, or alive?

The fact that an unborn requires a certain environment for a finite period of time in no way negates the fact that it is alive.

It is dependent, but I don't seem to find legal precedent anywhere that suggests that dependence is a valid reason to kill. Perhaps you can provide a link or biographical reference to such information.

[Pale RIder]

[quote=That RascalPuff]PLEATS & PATCHES ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY FOLD & SEAM
- Willie the Shake (Paraphrased)

The non-sequitur, oxymoron and prevarication being the mutually supportive, symbiotic triumvirate stooges that they are. This record has encountered, been accosted by and otherwise intersected a foreboding number of ballot boxers who are tandemly 'pro nuclear power' and 'pro life'. Word is that *'anything is possible'; whereas, the above balloteering example seems consummate proof countermanding *that clliche. (Still, the Geiger counter gagging, jugglers of nuclear bon bon's and other smiling death merchants continue to draw an ominously compromising, if not vigorously approving crowd.) .................../QUOTE]

So, are you saying that you have no opinion except that which someone else has given you?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: fedfem Interesting...you just described a parasite.

It still has life. The argument to which I was responding insisted that life had not yet begun.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: bandaid I think that life begins when that life isn't dependent on another life in order to live. Once a baby is born, if the mother dies the baby will still live. But, until it is born or at a stage where it can be born prematurely and be kept alive by modern medicine it cannot live on its own.

Ah but then life never begins since we are all, in one way or another, dependent upon each other in order to live.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Pale RIder You are talking court decisions, not the law, as in legislation.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court interprets the Law of the land.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Gorgo The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court interprets the Law of the land.

Article III of the Constitution, as amended, does not give the SCOTUS the authority to "interpret" the Constitution.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Chancellor Article III of the Constitution, as amended, does not give the SCOTUS the authority to "interpret" the Constitution.

I don't understand. Please clarify.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Gorgo I don't understand. Please clarify.

There is nothing in the text of Article III of the Constitution (the part that talks about the judicial branch, including the SCOTUS) that gives the Courts the authority to "interpret" the Constitution. In other words (by way of example), the Courts do not have a right to extend, say, the Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure to mean "a right to privacy."

[Starboy]

Quote by: Chancellor There is nothing in the text of Article III of the Constitution (the part that talks about the judicial branch, including the SCOTUS) that gives the Courts the authority to "interpret" the Constitution. In other words (by way of example), the Courts do not have a right to extend, say, the Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure to mean "a right to privacy."

Chancellor, you really should try to learn more about what you are talking about. This is what the constitution has to say about the Supremes:

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)

It doesn't say "some Cases", it says "all Cases".

Starboy

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy Chancellor, you really should try to learn more about what you are talking about. This is what the constitution has to say about the Supremes: It doesn't say "some Cases", it says "all Cases". Starboy

Where did I say "some cases"? If you're going to disagree with me then disagree with what I actually SAID and not what you read INTO it. Where does the Article say ANYTHING giving SCOTUS the authority to "interpret" the Constitution?

YOU need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Chancellor Where did I say "some cases"? If you're going to disagree with me then disagree with what I actually SAID and not what you read INTO it. Where does the Article say ANYTHING giving SCOTUS the authority to "interpret" the Constitution? YOU need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read.

Maybe you are right about elementary school but that would mean you still have to learn how to count and say your ABCs.

In any case the part you need to try to sound out carefully while using a dictionary is in bold and underlined.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: That RascalPuff *************** MAY THE READER BEAR WITH THE FOLLOWING DEPARTURE FROM TOPIC. (Not without it's own educational value, if not oblique charm?) PERHAPS LISTING IT UNDER THE IMPORT OF STAYING ON TOPIC. AS WELL AS REVIEWING THE WEIGHTY IMPORTANCE OF DISCERNING THE RIGHT DRAGON FROM THE WRONG, AND THE GOOD FROM THE BAD (and Ooogly?) Dear Pale Rider: :eek: .......................................................

For one who uses so many words, you say remarkably little and it hardly seems worth wading through such a wide ranging morass of effluvial twaddle to find even a small gem that may be contained within. Is it possible that you have a thesarus monkey on your back?

siete venuto, avete parlato molto, avete comunicato piccolo

[Starboy]

Quote by: That RascalPuff Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson, Aka KaiduOrkhon, etceteras. World's (sometimes most coveted?) Number One Einstein Groupie. Aegis of the Ordu of Thu Doh LionDog, Guardian of the Golden Dragonthrone Denizen of the Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon A subsidiary of Cold Steel - Ceremonial Interment From Above - Enterprises. Vini. Vici. Entiendo. (Prego y Ciao desde el proximo vez.)

You forgot to mention:

Sesquipedalian of the moot, and
Master of effluent of the oral cavity.

Starboy

[lessthan]

i dont get how the parent can kill the kid and be charged but nothing happens if the kid kills the parents when its being born isnt that murder also? even though its not meant isnt it the same thing?

[GWilikers]

I haven't been around for awhile and I did not read all 361 posts to this thread, so I may be out of line but I voted other and my explanation is that all life is life regardless of its termination. It really doesn't start and end. As long as there is life, it's alive as we understand living. So the fetus is a living thing, as is the person carrying it. The matter that makes up the fetus is alive prior to conception, because the two beings responsible for it are alive.

This precludes removing the fetus prior to birth (forced abortion) because it's destroying life. It does not preclude capital punishment because that is a law that society creates to protect itself from those they deem unsuitable to live among people who obey laws.

As for the Supremes and the Constitution argument..... the court does not have the right to interpret any case that comes before them. All they are empowered to do is rule on each case, as it answers to the Constitution. Either each case answers one, some or all the points in the Constitution or it doesn't. And the Supremes cannot interpret it in such a way that it creates new law.

This is currently how all our courts operate. It's nearly all unconsitutional. I say nearly all, because once in awhile something is decided based upon the Constitution. A rarity that not many people seem to appreciate. They'd rather see judges change the laws they dont' like. Which is what drives the current impass over judical nominations.