What’s the point of examining Griswold or any other judicial cases? - Dolphin

ROFLMAO you are kidding me here right? Please tell me you are kidding I shudder to think anyone wouldn't recognize the importance.. I'll even give you a clue.. somethings are defined by governing law becuase of a judgement issued by the court..

I almost mistook you for a serious debater. Thanks for correcting that.

Jincks, in debate, just like in a trial, you want to keep the debate in focus. Previously, I had already pointed out to you about your straying from the actual point of debate. I had even gone back to search for the original debate point and quoted verbatim to you what we were debating about in order to prevent you from straying and dumping a bunch of irrelevant cases to confound and evade the issue. Now, I have to repeat the same effort to search and quote you your original contention. Here was what you said:

http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic120853 _120.html
Posted: 02-16-08 07:58am
Jincks013: You want a governmental inquiry into the viability of each and every pregnancy considered for abortion? I think you need to reexamine your constitution a bit more closely. Focus on Article four and six.

Did you realize that your own contention was about the Constitution issue regarding “a governmental inquiry into the viability of each and every pregnancy considered for abortion”? So, tell me what did the Griswold-Roe line of cases you referred to have anything to do with the question of Constitutional delegation of right to governmental inquiry? Are they the US Constitution that contained Article four and six which you wanted me to focus on?

At the very least, know your own contention before you belittle others of your own folly. It only makes you look bad without me even trying.

I know you won’t blink if the two boys were fetuses in her womb, whereas I make no distinction between born and pre-born. That was the whole point I was talking about in that you and I are diametrically opposed to each other in our belief.


With all the violence that have been going on, isn’t it sad that the trump card of mental disease is so pervasive and tenacious in its grip on the soft spot of modern society, especially when there is an agenda to advance a cause? It’s now even toss around like some hot cakes if not the latest fashion fad. Too bad the jury in Susan Smith’s trial didn’t catch on, otherwise she could have gone free or at least committed to a mental institution for some short time. Then again, those boys were still human beings regardless of whether Susan Smith was mentally ill or not, don't you agree? If they were mere parasites by reason of Susan Smith’s mental illness, then I can see your point.

And since you mentioned “mental illness”, it got me to think, could abortive women also have some mental issue? Because I could never understand why would a pregnant mother willingly kill her own unborn children? If they were insane, were they then not lost their “personhood” status for lack of rational thought assigned to a “person”?


“widget”, “parasite”, “a blob”, “a leech”, etc, etc. I’ve heard it all. Therefore, creative yes, but it doesn’t arouse me anymore.

Human life simply begins at the moment of conception. Human prenatal to post-natal development is simply a continuous process. Any artificial demarcation is simply man-made fo serve a self-serving agenda. To wit, as follows:

Blackmun said it was viability, but the line of viability changed and kept changing to keep pace with modern medical technology while millions of human lives were sacrificed since Roe v Wade. Some said it was “quickening”. Some said the brain has to be connected, whatever that means. Some said it was the brain wave. Some contended that it was after the third trimester. Some argued for the 8th month. Some declared that as long as the parasite remains in the woman’s body. Some made it to the moment of delivery while others won’t blink a flip as long as the placenta is still attached to the mother even long after birth. While the lines keep producing new versions like the fashionable cell phones, millions more lives are taken without making you sick. But, it does me.


Did I ever refute your right of life from nature? Of course you have the right to make decision about your body. But, you don’t have the right to kill your own baby in the womb. The unborn baby gets his/her right to live from nature too. That’s his/her body, can you refute that? I don’t think you can. (I know, it’s very frustrating, diametrically).


Never mind. The point just gets lost back there somewhere, I hate to go back and dig it up.


It’s not evasive. I thought you were referring to the unborn regarding the “breathing” part. I don’t deny that your life has more facets than breathing. So, how’s that helps in your argument?


That was why there was a medical exclusion clause in the case where the mother’s life is in danger when abortion was illegal prior to Roe v Wade. If it’s legit, there should be no problem. If it’s bogus, then you can’t simply kill your own child.


On purpose? What do you mean? I made a legit argument based on your assertion. In the previous post, you made the following argument:

It is illogical to outlaw abortion because some individuals are sorry they made that choice.

If you wish, we may outlaw sugar in food because of the same ideas. Or Yugos. Or marriage.

You equate “sugar in food”, “Yugos”(whatever that means), and marriage to abortion, not me.

You know I don’t base on individual regret to outlaw abortion. I base it on biological fact that the unborn is a human being, you know that.


Any other reason besides defending your own life is unjust when you willfully kill another human life.


The only just cause I mentioned was self-defense. So, how did we get to this point if not for your contrary take? If you have no problem with women having a right of self-defense, then we both agree with this just cause. Then case closed.

Dolphinocean, a friend of mine sent me these links a month ago about these unmarried women in her area having babies. I couldn't believe the comments the readers posted. There is still quite a stigma against single mothers. Check 'em out:

http://www.norwalkreflector.com/articles/2 008/01/04/front/iq_478501.txt

http://www.norwalkreflector.com/articles/2 007/08/10/front/doc46bd2729d6608811529467. txt

There was one more on a 18 year old who had the first baby of the New Year and you would have thought she was Satan incarnate the way these people attacked her. I can't find the link.

I'm not excusing Susan Smith's behavior by mentioning that it sounds like she had a mental illness. Just commenting on what she did, and maybe what part of her motivations were. You certainly had an interesting reaction.

Some "abortive" women could have a mental illness, just like some pregnant women and women with children. If you think that solely because a woman had an abortion = "mental issue" you will find it a hard road to prove that.

It is this lack of understanding why pregnant women obtain abortions that I am hoping will be addressed by you reading abortion stories.



I'm not trying to 'arouse' you by using widget; lately on this forum people have been going back and forth with terms and widget seemed the most neutral term to me. I don't mean anything by it at all.

It isn't upsetting to me because, well, I just don't care about a six week old fetus. I don't see why I should. All the crap going on in the world. It's not important. Especially ignoring "potential" and looking as it is now; it's existence is not more significant than the mother. What is it about a fetus that makes it so important that makes people like you want to step inside her skin and make her personal medical decisions for her?



I'm not asking you to refute my right of life from nature, I never said that, but this: "I have more of a 'right' to make decisions about what's under my skin than any other creature." "Any other creature" includes prolife advocates. Can you refute that you have more of a right to make decisions about what's under my skin than I do?

It most certainly is "his/her" own body. It's unfortunate that it resides within mine. There is no magic line at my uterus where my right to make decisions stops. I'm not being obtuse; but is there a line in there just because you feel that's how it should be?



That defending my life is not just about defending my breathing. It means defending my education, career, relationships, health, etc.



That's fine with me, since I see the multifaceted concept of defending your life as including many, many things.

If you subscribe to the narrow view of "defending your life" than that is your opinion only, and you are unable to prove your last statement.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice misdirection attempt.. now will you just answer the question. What makes you think that judicial bodies do not define laws as presented by cases?
I"ll give you a big hint here.. Roe Vs. Wade.. what came of that??

Judicial bodies define laws? You mean interpret laws, right? Laws define rights, judicial bodies interpret the laws. But, those are entirely different debates not germane to our argument.

Did you actually bother to go back and read our original contention? Or are you purposefully so obtuse so that you think you can, by pretending, cover up your own lacking?

Our original argument stemmed from my contention on the burden of proof for denying the humanity of the unborn human life. That was when you jumped in and you asked me at which stage “should we commence criminal capital cases against the feti”? To your question I replied as follows:

Me: At the very least, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry to address the issue of whether the prenatal life is a human being or just a blob of human tissue cells before we kill it?

That was the original argument. That was also an impromptu proposal on my part in this thread as a suggestion for a “government inquiry” in the mode of congressional hearing such as those on Roger Clemens’ steroid use or in the mode of John Scopes (Monkey) trial on evolution. In this case, it would be a congressional hearing or judicial trial on when human life begins. To suggest I examine the decisions of previous judicial rulings that have nothing to do with our argument over the constitutional right of congress to hold such hearing is just ridiculous. Certainly, congress has the power to do so under the Constitution. But then you hijacked the debate and twisted it into something else. Instead of conceding your error, you go into a circus of trolling and dumping a bunch of your so-called “Griswold-Roe line of cases” that are totally irrelevant and completely out of context to the point of discussion to evade your shortcoming in the debate. Yet, you have the nerve to accuse me of your dishonest behavior and evasive conduct despite having been shown your error.

BTW, in Roe v Wade, Blackmun dismissed Texas’ argument that “life begins at conception” in Texas State's effort to protect prenatal life from abortion. Blackmun simply said: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins”.

I know all these are going to be futile on you. At least my effort exposes your scheme. Got to run…

Just thought I'd drag up this thread to post a very interesting comment defending libertarian pro-choicers and late-term abortion laws, a subtle nod to Eiri and the like to which they have tried to defend their legal opposition:

"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."

Every single sentence contains a specific argument defending the legality of late-term terminations. I'll say it again: it doesn't matter how developed or how undeveloped foetuses are - scientifically they are all parasites and should never usurp the rights of their physical hostess, which would equate slavery in any case. A contraversial debate such as abortion should be emancipated and freed of governmental meddling. It's not extreme, it's commonsensical. It's pro-choice.

[edit] I chopped out this post and made it into a whole new topic. I'm not leaving it here because that would get confusing. Rest assured, I replied to the bolded section in the above post.

Did you imagine that it remained an egg forever, or what?

Seriously... O.o Like, duh. It's not "a" sperm and "an" egg anymore. It's a zygote. A Blastocyst, etc.

Oh my, a voice of reason for a change.......

I have never said the unborn is anything BUT alive. I find it ridiculous and very harmful when pro-choicers try to say it is not alive. It is 100% alive, but then again so was the egg and so was the sperm. It's ALL alive.

I do admit that the fetus is a human being, and I do believe that a woman should be criminally liable for harm befalling the fetus on the same level as she would be for harming an infant.

I don't see the big whoop here. Of course, one naturally follows the other. If you are pregnant, you should be held responsible for the safety of your baby.

I do admit that the fetus is a human being, and I do believe that a woman should be criminally liable for harm befalling the fetus on the same level as she would be for harming an infant.

I don't see the big whoop here. Of course, one naturally follows the other. If you are pregnant, you should be held responsible for the safety of your baby.

I do admit that the fetus is a human being, and I do believe that a woman should be criminally liable for harm befalling the fetus on the same level as she would be for harming an infant.

I don't see the big whoop here. Of course, one naturally follows the other. If you are pregnant, you should be held responsible for the safety of your baby.

IF the harm is purposeful. I don't think she should be charged for accidental manslaughter if her body miscarries the child, for example. However, if it's something obvious like drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to give birth then yes, she is 100% responsible.

than she become inferior to what is inside of her, next thing you know we have to lock woman up in a prision cell for nine months with no windows because sex is bad as well as uva rays....

This could be very, very scary. Society would have to explicitly define "something obvious" and then what exactly that responsibility entails.

I would be in no favor of such a law. I would hope to compel pregnant women by education instead.