Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Another common cry I've been hearing from the left is that "The Supreme Court can't just change its mind! It has to respect Stare Decisis!"

Well, yes, that's certainly a desirable trait, especially in matters of criminal law, so that we can have continuity of judgement. Otherwise, conduct which has previously been held to be legal might suddenly become illegal, and than people would unfairly face prosecution for such acts!

Except, there are times when it's desirable to strike down prior precedent and replace it with new interpretations. One such example which the lefties will no doubt cherish is Brown v. Board of Education, which reversed 60 years of precedent laid down by Plessy v. Ferguson which held that racial segregation by way of "separate but equal" laws

I'd challenge you to find any present-day leftie who would argue that reversing Plessy was wrong, that the Court should have respected that decision, and that we should still have "whites only" schools and traincars today.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

That will always be the most polarizing question of the debate. Someone who you disagree with on this question will almost never be able to convince you otherwise, so I shall not try to convince anyone otherwise. Every argument on when a fetus becomes a "person" has validity to it on some level, so trying to prove that any of those arguments are wrong is a fruitless endeavor.

My opinion on the answer to that question is: "While those with personal relationships with the fetus grant the fetus those rights."

I don't believe that my method of getting to that opinion is too terribly complex;
The very first principle of the very first amendment of the bill or rights is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Humans have rights, and those rights are "God given", and as such, those rights should apply when a human is effectively created. I believe this to be the zygote stage of development.
But since "Congress shall make no law...", then there is no room, except through constitutional amendment, for congress to make a law respecting the "God given" rights.
We do claim to have "God given" rights, but these rights are enumerated by Man; we don't have these rights because God gave them to us, we have these rights because Man said "God gave them to us". God may also have given me the right to take a **** on the street in public, but Man has not enumerated that right, and so I don't have it.
Science says that humans are animals. I've never heard a rebuttal to this argument that didn't rest on religious grounds, and thus it would be incorrect for congress to make a law respecting that humans were not animals.
We kill animals all of the time - we kill old animals, we kill young animals, we kill freshly born animals, and we kill unborn animals. All types of killing are legal. (Consider the average life expectancy of the economically worthless rooster.)
In order to determine why we should be able to guiltlessly massacre non-humans but why we must not do the same to humans, we must either say humans are not animals (religious), or we must determine what things make humans scientifically "different" from other animals, and thus protected by laws from death.
Since nobody has told me what those things are, I kind of had to make them up:

1. Economically beneficial skills.
2. Personal relationships with other humans.

For #1, a goose has skills, but those skills tend to not be economically beneficial - perhaps they are ecologically beneficial, but that's not important.
For #2, it's not necessary that the relationships be "socially beneficial", only that those personal relationships exist.

When we're considering capital punishment for a criminal case, that punishment is decided by a jury, and while they are weighing many things when deciding, they are also considering "does this person add economic value to our society" and "how much will others suffer if we put this person to death?"

With an unborn human, that human's society is "one". The child has no economically beneficial skills. You can certainly argue that the child has the ability to "learn" those skills, but two counterpoints are: 1. replacement humans are terribly easy to make - we do it by accident all of the time (consider scientific perspective, not religious perspective), and 2. The mother is (or ought to be) considering the economic costs versus benefits of bringing a child into her life "right now" for 18 or more years.

The child also has no personal relationships save for one: with the child's mother. Others may think that they have a relationship with the child, but they typically do not - they have a relationship with the mother. I do offer a grey area in my opinion: feeling the baby "kick" may present an opportunity for a third party to have a relationship under very limited circumstances, for a future father, sibling, or close grandparent, for instance, and that typically starts around month 5 or 6.

With only one personal relationship and zero economically beneficial skills, it doesn't make sense to me as to why anyone but the mother would have a say in the life or death of the unborn human. Typically, the mother isn't choosing to abort a pregnancy with an exuberant "stick it to the man!" or "%$@#@ Jesus!" attitude like the media likes to pretend, but rather she's committing to one of two very undesirable outcomes. We like to think that the "rape clause" or whatever is enough of a relief, but what about the mother who's breadwinning husband dies in a horrible car accident with no life insurance two days before she finds out she's pregnant with their first? We know what we'd want, but we're dead, and she's got to decide how this affects the rest of her life, and maybe that little boy or girl needs to wait a few years until mommy can build up some emergency savings and better income earning skills or move on to another valuable relationship that can support raising a child under much better conditions than the last.

I'll go back to the original question: "At what point in time does (or should) the fetus gain rights of its own?" and I'll pose an alternative question: "In the absence of a law respecting the establishment of a religion, who would be better than the mother at deciding the answer to that question?" While I have an opinion on the subject, it certainly isn't me, and unless you have a personal relationship with the fetus, it probably isn't you.

On a related topic. We don't have laws against murdering to help the victims - no victim has ever been made whole by winning a murder trial. We have laws against murdering in order to convince would-be murderers to not commit murder. In fact, we have lots of laws for lots of things, and the ultimate goal of those laws is generally to prevent people from doing things counterproductive to the goals of society. We levy punishments on people only after they have done the thing that we said was counterproductive to the goals of society. When a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, many people with personal relationships mourn, others develop some amount of fear about drunk drivers, either rational or irrational, and they make decisions such as participating less in jobs and community events after dark, or complaining to government to "do something" about drunk drivers (which they inevitably will at substantial cost), or even moving their lives to a place where they think there will be fewer drunk drivers but they'll have to build new job skills, get new jobs, and build new personal relationships at the new place. Abortions aren't typically counterproductive to any social goals (unless perhaps the social goal is something such as an increased national birth rate), and Karen with three kids next door isn't suddenly going to fear that one of her children is going to get hit by an abortion coming home from work late at night.

Finally, a question to ponder: If mothers can choose whether or not to have an abortion, why can't unmarried future fathers make a similar decision to permanently and irrevocably sever ties with the unborn human?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

The Founding Fathers wisely said that humans have certain rights that predate the government. These rights can't be separated from us. For the past 50 years science has made some very compelling arguments that life is present well before the baby pops out of the vajayjay.

On the other side, pro abortion groups have made some very poor decisions in regards to the selling of aborted baby parts, and things like the little horror show that was put on by Kermit Gosnell. They're going to need to restate their arguments....better.

L337TurboZ

iTrader: (1)

The argument of when life begins for the fetus seems simple to me. That is the moment of conception as to when the sperm enters the egg and the reaction begins. I read an article once that scientists monitored when the sperm enters the egg and at that moment a small flash of light occurred. Granted it wasn't 100 percent accurate because it was a synthetic chemical reaction. It stated zinc was released which cause a "spark"

Now without getting too religious or relating this to religion, one could say that it is either an atomic reaction between the two or it could be construed as to the soul entering the embryo.

Others argue that it isn't alive until it takes it's first breath however while in the womb the fetus is breathing, just not in the conventional sense as we do outside the womb. People argue that until the brain is formed or the heart beats it isn't alive. However science once again has proven that even though the heart stops, our brains continue to function for a period of time afterwards. What happens during that time isn't specifically nailed down, just that brain activity is recorded.

So my question really is, when is death technically final? If you abort a fetus before it's brain is formed then did it have sentience? Was it able to feel or comprehend the process of death?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

is this anti-science, I forgot how it works?





bonus material:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Jan 6 was totally a right-winged coup.

too bad the story is a complete hearsay fabrication, but okay.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the FBI is was aware of what the FBI was up to.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It's weird all the news organizations are still all taking about the fabricated russia perfect call feeding fish limo story, and not about Hunter's/Joe's quid pro quo VM.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Bajingo

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/polit...024/index.html

Please 🙏🙏🙏

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

aged badly:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Global Famine, but No Mean Tweets!

From the article:
If American farmers are hurting, then the rest of the world will follow. The situation is so concerning that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world faces a “catastrophe” because of the growing food shortage across the globe.
“There is a real risk that multiple famines will be declared in 2022,” he said in a video message to officials from dozens of rich and developing countries gathered in Berlin. “And 2023 could be even worse.”

Guterres noted that harvests across Asia, Africa and the Americas will take a hit as farmers around the world struggle to cope with rising fertilizer and energy prices.

“This year´s food access issues could become next year´s global food shortage,” he said. “No country will be immune to the social and economic repercussions of such a catastrophe.”

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

now do the FBI, DOJ, DHS, ADA, CDC, ATF, and NIAID. k thanks.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

dear irony, today was a big day...