Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for a Supreme Court Justice

Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 7:41:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No suggestions? If not, I'm going with my default: does the carpet match the drapes?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 7:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

While your question is good, I think you should ask if it is acceptable for judges to bring their political views into the law, and to defend her answer.
Law should be objective, so the "conservative" court should have no bearing on how law is interpreted, right?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 8:36:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 7:43:59 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

While your question is good, I think you should ask if it is acceptable for judges to bring their political views into the law, and to defend her answer.
Law should be objective, so the "conservative" court should have no bearing on how law is interpreted, right?

I was leaning toward something like this. Or how do you balance your own political views and your duties on the bench. I agree with you about objectivity, but part of the reason they are appointed is because of their political and ideological leanings, no?

I was also thinking about asking about how she interacts with the other justices, or whether they interact at all. Would that be weird? lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 8:38:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:36:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:43:59 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

While your question is good, I think you should ask if it is acceptable for judges to bring their political views into the law, and to defend her answer.
Law should be objective, so the "conservative" court should have no bearing on how law is interpreted, right?

I was leaning toward something like this. Or how do you balance your own political views and your duties on the bench. I agree with you about objectivity, but part of the reason they are appointed is because of their political and ideological leanings, no?
Yeah, they are, but is that just political pandering or do justices really "betray" the law because they want to?

I was also thinking about asking about how she interacts with the other justices, or whether they interact at all. Would that be weird? lol
Do they have an annual beach party?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 8:39:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:08:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Ask if interpreting the constitution requires popular support.

That's a good one. I wonder how the audience would react.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 8:38:15 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:36:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:43:59 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

While your question is good, I think you should ask if it is acceptable for judges to bring their political views into the law, and to defend her answer.
Law should be objective, so the "conservative" court should have no bearing on how law is interpreted, right?

I was leaning toward something like this. Or how do you balance your own political views and your duties on the bench. I agree with you about objectivity, but part of the reason they are appointed is because of their political and ideological leanings, no?
Yeah, they are, but is that just political pandering or do justices really "betray" the law because they want to?

My wager is that they don't interpret their decisions as at all biased, or at least no more so than they believe is within their purview.

I was also thinking about asking about how she interacts with the other justices, or whether they interact at all. Would that be weird? lol
Do they have an annual beach party?

lol or a toga party.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:14:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 9:09:10 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:38:15 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/30/2015 8:36:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/30/2015 7:43:59 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

While your question is good, I think you should ask if it is acceptable for judges to bring their political views into the law, and to defend her answer.
Law should be objective, so the "conservative" court should have no bearing on how law is interpreted, right?

I was leaning toward something like this. Or how do you balance your own political views and your duties on the bench. I agree with you about objectivity, but part of the reason they are appointed is because of their political and ideological leanings, no?
Yeah, they are, but is that just political pandering or do justices really "betray" the law because they want to?

My wager is that they don't interpret their decisions as at all biased, or at least no more so than they believe is within their purview.
I'm sure they'll say that, of course.
It's not like people have different opinions of the law. What is a right? What constitutes "general welfare" or "commerce"? I think that, generally, most decisions are not close. But, people blame the 5-4s on politics.

I was also thinking about asking about how she interacts with the other justices, or whether they interact at all. Would that be weird? lol
Do they have an annual beach party?

lol or a toga party.
As if there is a casual Friday, where they don't wear clothes under their robes.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:40:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Ask if her about decisions where the Constitution trumped her personal politics.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 9:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 9:40:04 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Ask if her about decisions where the Constitution trumped her personal politics.

Oh, that's good. I was so interested in asking about the opposite scenario that I didn't consider that.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?
"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...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:59:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?

My school's pretty liberal. I'd rather not be run out of the audotorium lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 12:07:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:11:52 AM, TN05 wrote:
Ask in which circumstances it isn't appropriate to consider foreign law.

Interesting. What's your opinion on that?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 1:15:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 10:59:34 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?

My school's pretty liberal. I'd rather not be run out of the audotorium lol

That speaks volumes.

Of course, Ginsburg would not be invited to speak at a school where her views would be challenged. Neither would she accept an invitation to speak at a school where they might be challenged.

Pathetic.
"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...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 3:45:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 12:07:59 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/31/2015 11:11:52 AM, TN05 wrote:
Ask in which circumstances it isn't appropriate to consider foreign law.

Interesting. What's your opinion on that?

I don't like the idea of using the rulings of foreign courts to determine what our constitutions say - especially courts which use civil law instead of common law. Those happen to make up the majority of courts (and people) in the world. Each court system works within the country it is established in, and according to their laws and their constitutions. I don't think they are qualified to serve as examples for our laws, or vice versa.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:11:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 1:15:29 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/31/2015 10:59:34 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?

My school's pretty liberal. I'd rather not be run out of the audotorium lol

That speaks volumes.

Of course, Ginsburg would not be invited to speak at a school where her views would be challenged. Neither would she accept an invitation to speak at a school where they might be challenged.

Pathetic.

You never know; campus lectures have a storied history of going horribly wrong, especially with the prevalence of available filming equipment and our viral video culture. If any drama happens, I'll let you know.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:12:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 3:45:34 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 1/31/2015 12:07:59 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/31/2015 11:11:52 AM, TN05 wrote:
Ask in which circumstances it isn't appropriate to consider foreign law.

Interesting. What's your opinion on that?

I don't like the idea of using the rulings of foreign courts to determine what our constitutions say - especially courts which use civil law instead of common law. Those happen to make up the majority of courts (and people) in the world. Each court system works within the country it is established in, and according to their laws and their constitutions. I don't think they are qualified to serve as examples for our laws, or vice versa.

So should we ever consider foreign law? What about when countries are working together toward some end?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 5:42:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:12:29 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/31/2015 3:45:34 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 1/31/2015 12:07:59 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/31/2015 11:11:52 AM, TN05 wrote:
Ask in which circumstances it isn't appropriate to consider foreign law.

Interesting. What's your opinion on that?

I don't like the idea of using the rulings of foreign courts to determine what our constitutions say - especially courts which use civil law instead of common law. Those happen to make up the majority of courts (and people) in the world. Each court system works within the country it is established in, and according to their laws and their constitutions. I don't think they are qualified to serve as examples for our laws, or vice versa.

So should we ever consider foreign law? What about when countries are working together toward some end?

If it's in regards to a treaty, I don't see a huge problem as long as it's just supporting (like noting how other countries implement it) the argument. It would also make sense to use it when prosecuting someone under foreign law or when considering extradition or the like.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:36:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?

Do you see a difference with what a woman does with her body as opposed to an assailant does TO her body?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:39:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 4:36:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?

Do you see a difference with what a woman does with her body as opposed to an assailant does TO her body?

An abortion involves both. Doesn't it?

The woman has a body, the hack providing the abortion has a body and the child has a body. In an abortion, the woman pays the doctor to do something with her body that ends in the death of the child.
"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...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:16:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have one "Do you know what the word illegal means?"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 1:39:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/3/2015 4:36:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/31/2015 12:07:07 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/30/2015 11:30:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving a lecture at my school next Friday. As I was getting my ticket, I jokingly asked if I could sit on stage with her. They said no (sadsies), but they said I could potentially ask her a question.

Suggestions?

Yes. Could you please ask Justice Ginsburg how a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal homicide laws can be legally recognized as a human being / person if they are killed (murdered) in a criminal act. . . but they are not recognized as human beings / persons when it comes to any other Constitutional protections?

Do you see a difference with what a woman does with her body as opposed to an assailant does TO her body?

An abortion involves both. Doesn't it?

I can't find an assailant in an abortion procedure. Could you identify him or her please?

The woman has a body, the hack providing the abortion has a body and the child has a body.

Mass. I think it would be fair to say depending on gestation, it would have a 'mass'. To say its a human body does a disservice to what you and I call a human body.

In an abortion, the woman pays the doctor to do something with her body that ends in the death of the child.

Mass. Same thing, save for insert 'mass' rather than 'human body' from the previous argument.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:19:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/3/2015 1:39:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/3/2015 4:36:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Do you see a difference with what a woman does with her body as opposed to an assailant does TO her body?

An abortion involves both. Doesn't it?

I can't find an assailant in an abortion procedure. Could you identify him or her please?

http://www.theguardian.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

The woman has a body, the hack providing the abortion has a body and the child has a body.

Mass. I think it would be fair to say depending on gestation, it would have a 'mass'.

Even a single celled organism has mass. Physics 101

To say its a human body does a disservice to what you and I call a human body.


Recognition of a biological fact does not do a disservice to anything. The body of an amoeba is only one cell in size for the amoeba's entire lifespan. Mammals bodies begin as one cell and grow and develop from there. Biology 101

In an abortion, the woman pays the doctor to do something with her body that ends in the death of the child.

Mass. Same thing, save for insert 'mass' rather than 'human body' from the previous argument.

https://www.youtube.com...
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:00:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:36:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:19:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/3/2015 1:39:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/3/2015 4:36:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Do you see a difference with what a woman does with her body as opposed to an assailant does TO her body?

An abortion involves both. Doesn't it?

I can't find an assailant in an abortion procedure. Could you identify him or her please?

http://www.theguardian.com...

In what way is an abortion preformed in which a live fetus is born? ;)

https://www.youtube.com...

The woman has a body, the hack providing the abortion has a body and the child has a body.

Mass. I think it would be fair to say depending on gestation, it would have a 'mass'.

Even a single celled organism has mass. Physics 101

Yes, and biology 101 indicates what a mass is, too. Since we aren't arguing about grams and pounds, I will leave it to you decided which interpretation you would prefer to use.

To say its a human body does a disservice to what you and I call a human body.


Recognition of a biological fact does not do a disservice to anything.

It does if you insist on calling a mass of cells to be a 'body'.

The body of an amoeba is only one cell in size for the amoeba's entire lifespan.
Mammals bodies begin as one cell and grow and develop from there. Biology 101

In an abortion, the woman pays the doctor to do something with her body that ends in the death of the child.

Mass. Same thing, save for insert 'mass' rather than 'human body' from the previous argument.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:00:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:36:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

In what way is an abortion preformed in which a live fetus is born? ;)

https://www.youtube.com...

This kind: https://www.youtube.com...

Even a single celled organism has mass. Physics 101

Yes, and biology 101 indicates what a mass is, too. Since we aren't arguing about grams and pounds, I will leave it to you decided which interpretation you would prefer to use.

Our laws say a child in the womb is a human being in ANY stage of development. I see no reasons for why I should disagree with that determination.

To say its a human body does a disservice to what you and I call a human body.


Recognition of a biological fact does not do a disservice to anything.

It does if you insist on calling a mass of cells to be a 'body'.

Your body is merely a larger mass of cells now than it was when your body was first created at the moment of your conception. Do you deny this fact?
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:07:58 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:00:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:36:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

In what way is an abortion preformed in which a live fetus is born? ;)


--links snipped-- Can't watch stuff at work, bro. Try using your words, though I have this sneaking suspicion you would prefer to use graphic imagery in hopes of illiciting your main stay.

Even a single celled organism has mass. Physics 101

Yes, and biology 101 indicates what a mass is, too. Since we aren't arguing about grams and pounds, I will leave it to you decided which interpretation you would prefer to use.

Our laws say a child in the womb is a human being in ANY stage of development. I see no reasons for why I should disagree with that determination.

They say that when a crime is being committed out of some desire for vengence. There are no specific laws however that grant personhood ad hoc beyond what the Constitution already allows for.

That is all the laws you espouse regarding fetal protection currently are for: adding more charges. They are fetal homicide and fetal protection laws. Rather than form a jury to indict, a collection of activists petitioned for knee jerk emtional laws to govern how a mass of cells will be treated in all cases rather based on their morality rather than the situation at hand.

A mass of cells is not always a child, but a child is always a mass of cells.

To say its a human body does a disservice to what you and I call a human body.


Recognition of a biological fact does not do a disservice to anything.

It does if you insist on calling a mass of cells to be a 'body'.

Your body is merely a larger mass of cells now than it was when your body was first created at the moment of your conception. Do you deny this fact?

Of course not, but its an oversimplication in every sense of the word. 'a body' can also be described as a complete and defined work. A mass of such a nature as a developing human can't hold that same descriptor.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...