Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

UrielsFyre wrote: Big Evil wrote: Did I studder? I just said two of our most memorable, important presidents would say differantly.. :roll:

Becuase Washington and Lincoln would limit freedom (of which I am not convinced) that means that it is okay to go against the founding principles of the nation and strip away freedoms?
The constitution specifically states that you can take the life of a person (which a fetus doesn't even qualify for) as long as it is done by the due process of law. It is the part of the constitution that allows capital punishment.

[Mycroft147]

Selfish_Meme wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Big Evil wrote: Did I studder? I just said two of our most memorable, important presidents would say differantly.. :roll:

Becuase Washington and Lincoln would limit freedom (of which I am not convinced) that means that it is okay to go against the founding principles of the nation and strip away freedoms?
The constitution specifically states that you can take the life of a person (which a fetus doesn't even qualify for) as long as it is done by the due process of law. It is the part of the constitution that allows capital punishment.

The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.

[cap'n queasy]

Selfish_Meme wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Big Evil wrote: Did I studder? I just said two of our most memorable, important presidents would say differantly.. :roll:

Becuase Washington and Lincoln would limit freedom (of which I am not convinced) that means that it is okay to go against the founding principles of the nation and strip away freedoms?
The constitution specifically states that you can take the life of a person (which a fetus doesn't even qualify for) as long as it is done by the due process of law. It is the part of the constitution that allows capital punishment.

So you believe abortion is capital punishment?

If a fetus doesn't qualify as a person, neither does anyone else. After all, you too are just a mass of cells.

[Sailor Moon]

The unfortunate part of the "due process" clause is that unborn humans have no way of arguing their side. Theyre entirely innocent, too!

[Selfish_Meme]

Mycroft147 wrote: The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.
It does not matter that part wasn't written with the unborn in mind, it just codified the process necessary to take a life.

Don't go on to me about belief in it, after all I am not even American. It IS your constitution though. I am also not saying anything about the right or wrong of it. Just that it can be legal acording to your constitution.

[Selfish_Meme]

cap'n queasy wrote:

So you believe abortion is capital punishment?

If a fetus doesn't qualify as a person, neither does anyone else. After all, you too are just a mass of cells.
I don't know where I said in my statement that I believed anything, a person as defined in the constitution is born.Not unborn. Thats just how it is written, don't argue with me, change your own laws.

[Mycroft147]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.
It does not matter that part wasn't written with the unborn in mind, it just codified the process necessary to take a life.

Don't go on to me about belief in it, after all I am not even American. It IS your constitution though. I am also not saying anything about the right or wrong of it. Just that it can be legal acording to your constitution.

thats why im saying it should be changed because we know can see that it violates a humans right to life

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.
It does not matter that part wasn't written with the unborn in mind, it just codified the process necessary to take a life.

Don't go on to me about belief in it, after all I am not even American. It IS your constitution though. I am also not saying anything about the right or wrong of it. Just that it can be legal acording to your constitution.

What makes you think that the unborn were not considered when the US Constitution was written? The Declaration of Independance also uses the term "all MEN are created equal"... does that imply that women are not included?

You might be right about it, but you would have to tale away all womens Constitutional rights, in order to be 100% accurate.

Here, for your reading enjoyment- this is what has caused gun loving Americans who are pro life, anti oppression, and against the many evil works of our current government, to prepare for a new chapter in the Revolutionary War.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

To read the facts and proofs, go here:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

See any similarities?

History is doomed to repeat itself...

[Sailor Moon]

*apologise for double post*

[Selfish_Meme]

Was that your own double post?

Hehe, anyway I don't even know what you are replying for, men, women, it's all the same to me. Its the same to the constitution as well. You cn take a life of the born, the unborn, the not even thought about, as long as due process of law is done.

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.
It does not matter that part wasn't written with the unborn in mind, it just codified the process necessary to take a life.

Don't go on to me about belief in it, after all I am not even American. It IS your constitution though. I am also not saying anything about the right or wrong of it. Just that it can be legal acording to your constitution.

thats why im saying it should be changed because we know can see that it violates a humans right to life

And changing it would violate a woman's right to make decisions over hew own body.

[Sailor Moon]

Making a decision that affects another person, by taking its life, is not autonomy.

See the Bill of Rights. Amendment 5, 8 , 9, 10, and see the beginning of age discrimination (only allowing people 18 and older to vote) in Amendment 26, as well.. just 2 years before Roe vs Wade...

[Prole]

Regarding "pro-choice" versus "pro-abortion/death/whatever", Big Evil, they are completely different positions. Pro-choice individuals want abortions to be a choice; they do not care whether or not people exercise that choice, and many, including myself, would prefer there to be fewer abortions, though would never deny a woman the right to abort based on that preference. Pro-abortion people wish there were more abortions, for whatever reason.

Mycroft147 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.
It does not matter that part wasn't written with the unborn in mind, it just codified the process necessary to take a life.

Don't go on to me about belief in it, after all I am not even American. It IS your constitution though. I am also not saying anything about the right or wrong of it. Just that it can be legal acording to your constitution.

thats why im saying it should be changed because we know can see that it violates a humans right to life
Why does someone have right to life simply because they are biologically human?

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Making a decision that affects another person, by taking its life, is not autonomy.

See the Bill of Rights. Amendment 5, 8 , 9, 10, and see the beginning of age discrimination (only allowing people 18 and older to vote) in Amendment 26, as well.. just 2 years before Roe vs Wade...

I am well aware of the constitutional amendments you mentioned. But, those have little bearing on the question at hand.

I assume that in Amendment 5 you are referring to that a person shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Beings that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, any argument that a fetus is being deprived of live in violation of amendment 5 is nullified as Roe v Wade made it legal through due process.

Amendment 8 refers to people held in prison, and is not applicable.

Amendment 9 means that one amendment shall not supersede another (but, since a fetus is not protected by the constitution until such time as it is born [this is legal, not my personal feeling] this doesn't matter).

Amendment 10 refers to the fact that whatever right is not stated as belonging to the federal government now belongs to the states. Now, I could get behind an argument that abortion should be a state's right not federal, but that is not what has been argued here. It has been argued that abortion should be illegal across the board, regardless of which body makes the decision.

And the reason that Amendment 26 was passed was due to the fact that 18 is the age at which one is considered to be a legal adult, able to enter in to contracts, etc. While, yes, the 18 mark is an arbitrary decision, it is one that makes sense. It is the age at which the majority of people finish high school, (and if they don't go to college) start working full time. With adult responsibilities comes adult privileges.

However, the real question is not the amendments, it is: Does a woman have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? Yes, she does.

[Sage Orator]

Sailor Moon wrote: Making a decision that affects another person, by taking its life, is not autonomy.

See the Bill of Rights. Amendment 5, 8 , 9, 10, and see the beginning of age discrimination (only allowing people 18 and older to vote) in Amendment 26, as well.. just 2 years before Roe vs Wade...
I don't think that, that particular time started age discrimination. If I remember correctly the law before that stated that your had to be at least 21 to vote. The real reason for the 26th Amendment was the activism of people between the ages of 18 and 21 at the time, which was well shown in colleges at the time.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

I did my highschool debate on this, but that was 10 years ago.

No one can strictly define when life begins. Some people argue that becasue of the embilical cord, a baby is still apart of the mothers body and thus isnt a its own entity until the cord is cut. Others say life begins once sperm meets the egg. Dont bother arguing this. For my debate I said I am not going to prove to you that the baby is its own entity protected by law, and you are not going to convince me that it is.

Once this is established the following occurs.

1) It is not necessarily murder because we dont know for sure when true indendepent conciousness begins and Murder is a legal definition (seperation of church at state), and thus you are not allowed to say abortion is wrong because you are committing murder. You can say killing, but not murder.

We all know murder is wrong, but abortion isnt legally defined as such yet.
Also, abortions are only done in the first trimester so all those pictures of full grown fetuses being cut up is not valid since those resulted from illegal abortions.


After you clear all that up, you can open the door to talk about possible advantages.

1) People are going to have abortions one way or another. Whether it is banned, people have them. Might as well legalize it so you can control it and reduce organized crime associated with it. Of course, this isnt the end all be all, because under that logic we would legalize prostitution.

Another reason to allow abortion is because many times babies are born into horrible situations. After a life of drugs, abuse, and crime, the babies that were born to parents who didnt want them eventually get locked up in jail by the same people who are against abortion. This also isnt the end all be all because you can always have the baby and give it up free and clear.

Good Luck

[jlrobe]

[/quote]haha sorry, i guess i made it unclear. I just have to write an argumentative paper. I chose abortion, and im going to do it pro-life. Its just that i want to present both sides and refute every pro-abortion argument that i can find.[/quote]

Well then you are very clever! That is very good. For my debate I couldnt choose, it was chosen for us, which I think was alot better (It teaches you to be a lawyer). It is good that you are trying to understand your opposition. Bravo.

In that case, you want to do things a little differently.

hahaha, actually my first post already has it all in there! I talked about prostitution being legalized etc. Please, for the sake of your paper, dont use murder or rape. it is too strong and will alienate your audience because they will no longer take your work as quality. In any paper that argues, you want to show your PERSUASIVE side, not your ARGUMENTATIVE side. You want to use examples the make your paper stronger. Anyhow, I am sure you are a fantastic writer and are just looking for ideas.

Say the following.

"just because marijauna isnt proven to be super harmful we dont legalize that." You can also say, "if we legalized prostitution we could require people to have a permit to practice it, and could require STD testing etc.".
Make sure you dont make marijuana or prostitution seem like the purpose of your paper, but instead a great way to counter the argument of "well if it were illegal, people would still do it".

See....people will understand that legalizing prostition and marijuana could in fact be beneficial, just like legalized abortion is. No one will follow your rants if you say "well if abortion is legal, why not make rape legal too".

Anyhow, you will make one heck of an argument. I wish I had the internet when I was still writing papers for school.

[jlrobe]

[/quote]The constitution doesnt countanyone as being a person unti lthe moment they are born. Does it make sense to say that a fetus becomes a human in the few seconds it takes for it to be born? does it really change during this process? no. The constitution was written long ago by people ignorant of the many scientific developments that have occured since then.[/quote]

Again, I think you are skating on thin ice. I would not allow my paper or debate to dwell too long on this argument. It is philosophical.

You are wondering why cutting the embilical cord is so significant in one instant, and others wonder why when sperm hits the egg it is so important. The truth is, life starts at an instant for both sides. For pro-lifers its the sperm hitting the egg, for pro-choicers it is the embilical cord being cut.

For washington it is the first 15 weeks, or so I thought.

Also, the constitution is fixed, but the supreme court constantly rules on how to best interpret based on our current soceity. THe consitution continual looks at everything.

People used the constituition and still justified slavery and jim crowe laws, so it can and does get misintrepeted all the time.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

ACtuallly, after reading through some of your other posts, there is little chance for you to write a good paper. On your other posts you seemed very rigid in your beliefs and as such your paper will just be 5 pages of "this is what I believe, you need to believe it to" ranting. I hope you can avoid this, and take some of my suggestions but it seems that ANY argument for pro-choice is a absurd one to you. IF you feel that way, then you will underestimate the pro-choice side. If you do that, you will have gaping holes in your paper.


THink of a prosecutrer who thinks they are invincible and that the defense is nothing but lunatics. They lose almost every case. To be constructive you are REQUIRED to understand the other side and empathize with them in order to convince them.

I read on another thread that you think a woman being raped by her father or certain death of the mother is not an excuse to have an abortion. If you dont believe this is an excuse, you wont believe anything is an excuse. I am not sure why you started a thread then. It is like a Islamic Jihadist starting a thread titled "Give me one good reason to love America".

Anyhow, maybe you arent super rigid, but it seems to be the case.

[Prole]

Welcome to PCF, jlrobe. I agree with you regarging persuasive arguements. Arging for a premise is not merely a matter of dismissing counterpoints, but of giving valid reasons to support that premise.