Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reverse Wade and abortion is still Legal

logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 6:42:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

From a liberal's view point -

This would allow states the power to deny a woman's rights. Would you like the right of free speech to be up to individual states, where any state can violate it if they wish? What about slavery? Or the right to vote? Or any other number of rights?

From a conservative's view point -

Same thing, only instead of a woman's right, it is a baby's right to life that we would be allowing states to violate. Of course, they view states violates one's rights as superior to the federal government to violate rights, but either way, they want a federal mandate to back up their beliefs.

From anyone that believes in rights' stand point - If abortion or life is a right, then it should be a right everywhere, not just in some states. Just like the right of free speech should be respected everywhere, and any other right.

Libertarians don't accept that rights should be allowed to be violated in some places but not others, Or is it that you only care about your own rights being violated and not the rights of others?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 11:20:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The framework used by the Court is not Roe v. Wade. It is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If a conservative is elected President next year and somehow appoints a 5-4 majority, then they will hear an appeal on an abortion case and challenge Ginsburg's argument regarding a person on life support who cannot demand that someone else be compelled to sacrifice themselves for another. It would likely involve a nuance regarding how this argument neglects the choice a parent made, which separates it fundamentally. Then this new conservative majority would create a theoretical framework that would then replace Casey and Roe v. Wade, which future courts would be compelled to comply with until the next time it is challenged.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 11:22:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And I guess it's almost too obvious to mention, but if Casey is overturned then several Southern States would have it outlawed completely before the ink dries.
Rob
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 6:44:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 6:42:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

From a liberal's view point -

This would allow states the power to deny a woman's rights. Would you like the right of free speech to be up to individual states, where any state can violate it if they wish? What about slavery? Or the right to vote? Or any other number of rights?

From a conservative's view point -

Same thing, only instead of a woman's right, it is a baby's right to life that we would be allowing states to violate. Of course, they view states violates one's rights as superior to the federal government to violate rights, but either way, they want a federal mandate to back up their beliefs.


From anyone that believes in rights' stand point - If abortion or life is a right, then it should be a right everywhere, not just in some states. Just like the right of free speech should be respected everywhere, and any other right.

Libertarians don't accept that rights should be allowed to be violated in some places but not others, Or is it that you only care about your own rights being violated and not the rights of others?

That's a problem because? The only reasonable position one has for being opposed to representative Legislation at the state level is that they accept penumbra, otherwise its simply an opposition to a democratic republic. Why not be honest and just say "You oppose the right of the people to determine for themselves. It is better that all is determined by the Elite or the majority."
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 6:48:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 11:20:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
The framework used by the Court is not Roe v. Wade. It is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If a conservative is elected President next year and somehow appoints a 5-4 majority, then they will hear an appeal on an abortion case and challenge Ginsburg's argument regarding a person on life support who cannot demand that someone else be compelled to sacrifice themselves for another. It would likely involve a nuance regarding how this argument neglects the choice a parent made, which separates it fundamentally. Then this new conservative majority would create a theoretical framework that would then replace Casey and Roe v. Wade, which future courts would be compelled to comply with until the next time it is challenged.

LOL nope, the landmark cases re this matter are, Griswald, Wade and Casey...Casey is based on the principle of Stare Decisis, Griswald is the "precedent" if you will. FYI, Wade was the goal of Planed Parenthood beginning in the early 1900's, and not until the 50's did they figure out a way to get it done using the Court and the "new" liberalism thereof. Read Griswald.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 6:49:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 11:22:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
And I guess it's almost too obvious to mention, but if Casey is overturned then several Southern States would have it outlawed completely before the ink dries.

You are a sooth sayer? So what, you obviously oppose self determination.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 7:06:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 6:59:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
No. Reverse Wade and it's edaW.

An excellent example, of what is slightly weighted.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

Things would greatly depend upon how the courts overturned Roe v Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the declaration of the fact that a "human being's life begins at conception and so begins their personhood and the Constitutional protection of our laws?"

No State would be able to keep elective (voluntary) abortion legal for very long following that decision.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 6:24:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 6:05:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

Things would greatly depend upon how the courts overturned Roe v Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the declaration of the fact that a "human being's life begins at conception and so begins their personhood and the Constitutional protection of our laws?"

No State would be able to keep elective (voluntary) abortion legal for very long following that decision.

Well, they are estopped from that applying decisis. Griswald is the determiner. In order for the Court to do as you claim, they would have to reverse all decisions which permitted abortion prior to 1973. Aint gonna happen. FYI Abortion was legal in many States in 1970
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 9:02:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2011 6:24:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/11/2011 6:05:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

Things would greatly depend upon how the courts overturned Roe v Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the declaration of the fact that a "human being's life begins at conception and so begins their personhood and the Constitutional protection of our laws?"

No State would be able to keep elective (voluntary) abortion legal for very long following that decision.

Well, they are estopped from that applying decisis. Griswald is the determiner. In order for the Court to do as you claim, they would have to reverse all decisions which permitted abortion prior to 1973. Aint gonna happen. FYI Abortion was legal in many States in 1970

I beg to differ.

Just as the courts did with slavery. Starry Decisis will not (can not/ must not) trump the rights of the individual.

It really is an all or nothing game at this point.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 10:15:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2011 9:02:40 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/12/2011 6:24:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/11/2011 6:05:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

Things would greatly depend upon how the courts overturned Roe v Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the declaration of the fact that a "human being's life begins at conception and so begins their personhood and the Constitutional protection of our laws?"

No State would be able to keep elective (voluntary) abortion legal for very long following that decision.

Well, they are estopped from that applying decisis. Griswald is the determiner. In order for the Court to do as you claim, they would have to reverse all decisions which permitted abortion prior to 1973. Aint gonna happen. FYI Abortion was legal in many States in 1970

I beg to differ.

Just as the courts did with slavery. Starry Decisis will not (can not/ must not) trump the rights of the individual.

It really is an all or nothing game at this point.

LOL please tell me that isn't what you learned in school. The courts upheld slavery untill the. 14th. I believe, amendment.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 4:06:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2011 10:15:03 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/12/2011 9:02:40 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/12/2011 6:24:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/11/2011 6:05:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/8/2011 4:42:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
I noticed the usual nonsense from the Christian right about abortion, and the nonsensical left on the same subject. IF wade is reversed it would revert back to the States and be legal in the US. Why does anyone have a problem with that, and except for the reversal of penumbra Doctrine hows it help?

Things would greatly depend upon how the courts overturned Roe v Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the declaration of the fact that a "human being's life begins at conception and so begins their personhood and the Constitutional protection of our laws?"

No State would be able to keep elective (voluntary) abortion legal for very long following that decision.

Well, they are estopped from that applying decisis. Griswald is the determiner. In order for the Court to do as you claim, they would have to reverse all decisions which permitted abortion prior to 1973. Aint gonna happen. FYI Abortion was legal in many States in 1970

I beg to differ.

Just as the courts did with slavery. Starry Decisis will not (can not/ must not) trump the rights of the individual.

It really is an all or nothing game at this point.

LOL please tell me that isn't what you learned in school. The courts upheld slavery until the. 14th. I believe, amendment.

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 10:04:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.

Logic,... do you agree with me that if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe Verses Wade decision on the basis that "personhood begins at conception"... that individual States will NOT still have the right to keep elective abortion legal within their individual State's jurisdictions?

yes or no?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 4:36:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 10:04:43 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.

Logic,... do you agree with me that if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe Verses Wade decision on the basis that "personhood begins at conception"... that individual States will NOT still have the right to keep elective abortion legal within their individual State's jurisdictions?

yes or no?

Begging the question fallacy (circular, petitio).
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 3:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 4:36:04 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/14/2011 10:04:43 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.

Logic,... do you agree with me that if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe Verses Wade decision on the basis that "personhood begins at conception"... that individual States will NOT still have the right to keep elective abortion legal within their individual State's jurisdictions?

yes or no?

Begging the question fallacy (circular, petitio).

I'm not begging anything.

I asked you a direct question. If you agree with the above or if you don't agree. Just say so.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 5:50:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 3:44:16 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2011 4:36:04 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/14/2011 10:04:43 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.

Logic,... do you agree with me that if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe Verses Wade decision on the basis that "personhood begins at conception"... that individual States will NOT still have the right to keep elective abortion legal within their individual State's jurisdictions?

yes or no?

Begging the question fallacy (circular, petitio).

I'm not begging anything.

I asked you a direct question. If you agree with the above or if you don't agree. Just say so.

LOL your question is logically fallacious, ie unanswerable as asked.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 6:47:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 4:36:04 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/14/2011 10:04:43 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.

Logic,... do you agree with me that if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe Verses Wade decision on the basis that "personhood begins at conception"... that individual States will NOT still have the right to keep elective abortion legal within their individual State's jurisdictions?

yes or no?

Begging the question fallacy (circular, petitio).

Proposition to be proven: Individual states will not have the right to keep elective abortion legal if the Supreme Court decides personhood begins at conception.

Assumption: Personhood begins at conception.

Possible answers: what you say will distinguish what you believe to be the relationship of " states/individual rights" to "law" as determined constitutionally by the Supreme Court and your views on federal incorporation of law. The proposition makes no assumptions about these factors.

How is this begging the question?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 9:44:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm against abortion, but it is a states rights issue, not a federal one. So if California want to kill babies good, but if Texas doesn't want to then great. So states rights. Personally I'm against it, as long as the states decide then I'm happy. Reverse Roe v. Wade and leave it to the states! (dramatic effect and applauds like I'm in a republican debate) =)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 7:10:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 9:44:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I'm against abortion, but it is a states rights issue, not a federal one. So if California want to kill babies good, but if Texas doesn't want to then great. So states rights. Personally I'm against it, as long as the states decide then I'm happy. Reverse Roe v. Wade and leave it to the states! (dramatic effect and applauds like I'm in a republican debate) =)

I'm hoping that all of the above is only sarcasm.

The right that a child has to their life is only a "State's" issue?

So much for the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" and the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:19:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 6:47:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/15/2011 4:36:04 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/14/2011 10:04:43 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/14/2011 3:14:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/13/2011 2:00:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:03:23 AM, logicrules wrote:

As we are in a discussion and not in a formal debate, I was perhaps being a little loose with my words (speaking in generalities) and was only trying to make the point that it's an "all or nothing" game.

That once slaves were declared "persons" (as prebirth children are for now being denied) the practice of slavery was not left up to the States.

It was prohibited Nation wide.

Incorrect, again, the 13th amendment frees all slaves and makes indentured servitude also illegal. No mention of persons, or part of a person, or any such thing. perhaps you mean citizen of the USA and not of a State. That is an entirely different issue. The whole person thing is made up nonsense.

Why do you insist on splitting hairs about this? The point remains that when slavery was abolished (because of the rights of the slaves that were being denied).<-----Generalization... "It was NOT then left up to the States"

Geeeeesh

LOL it is the Law, where lawyers spend hours arguing conjunctive v. disjunctive in context. The details are rather important, but basic understanding is a pre-requisite. Your mis-characterization of the law is a bit before the hair splitting stage, ignoring the Constitution.

Logic,... do you agree with me that if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe Verses Wade decision on the basis that "personhood begins at conception"... that individual States will NOT still have the right to keep elective abortion legal within their individual State's jurisdictions?

yes or no?

Begging the question fallacy (circular, petitio).

Proposition to be proven: Individual states will not have the right to keep elective abortion legal if the Supreme Court decides personhood begins at conception.

Assumption: Personhood begins at conception.

Possible answers: what you say will distinguish what you believe to be the relationship of " states/individual rights" to "law" as determined constitutionally by the Supreme Court and your views on federal incorporation of law. The proposition makes no assumptions about these factors.

How is this begging the question?The issue is about the reversal of wade. NB

Your assertion of personhood is 1. Undefined in any way and 2. A religious operant based on insoulubility and/or potentiality. Thus, you are incorrect in your understanding of Law and the Court, incorrect on your understanding of fallacies (you reworded and changed the original) and you clearly do not accept the principle of religious freedom. Your final question is begging because it uses all of the above as fact.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 7:53:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All I can say is I hope we look back at Abortion one day like we look back at slavery, an evil and sad time in American history, that should never have happened.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 7:08:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 7:53:06 PM, OberHerr wrote:
All I can say is I hope we look back at Abortion one day like we look back at slavery, an evil and sad time in American history, that should never have happened.

So you hope that religion is permitted to be incorporated into the law? Shall we make adultery a felony? Lust a minor misdemeanor? Taking the name of our god in vain a ticketable offense? maybe outlaw dancing? Bad idea I think.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 11:04:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 7:08:38 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/16/2011 7:53:06 PM, OberHerr wrote:
All I can say is I hope we look back at Abortion one day like we look back at slavery, an evil and sad time in American history, that should never have happened.

So you hope that religion is permitted to be incorporated into the law? Shall we make adultery a felony? Lust a minor misdemeanor? Taking the name of our god in vain a ticketable offense? maybe outlaw dancing? Bad idea I think.

I can hardly wait to get more into this, later...

What in the Hell does religion have to do with abortion?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 2:52:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:04:37 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/17/2011 7:08:38 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/16/2011 7:53:06 PM, OberHerr wrote:
All I can say is I hope we look back at Abortion one day like we look back at slavery, an evil and sad time in American history, that should never have happened.

So you hope that religion is permitted to be incorporated into the law? Shall we make adultery a felony? Lust a minor misdemeanor? Taking the name of our god in vain a ticketable offense? maybe outlaw dancing? Bad idea I think.

I can hardly wait to get more into this, later...

What in the Hell does religion have to do with abortion?

The only way the Court could rule as you suggest is to adopt a religions definition of life. That is how religion gets in.