But libs don’t like science, so why bother. You might as well say “i like abortion no matter what science says”.

So brooke:
ok, so your criteria is IF something ALIVE, has human DNA, BUT “requires another human being to support it, [then] it is not an individual person.”
ok, i think i got it.

First, where did this difference between “living human” and “living person” come from? certainly not the constitution.

Second, a one month-old baby requires another human being to support it or else it dies. Does that mean that it isn’t a “living person”? after all, it certainly doesn’t fit the “living person” criteria you put forth.
Or what about some guy in a coma? He requires not only other people to feed him, but help breathing and so on… I guess this human WAS a “living person” but since the coma, he is no longer a “living person”–just a living “thing” with human DNA.
Who knows? if he comes out of the come, we’ll let him be a “living person” again.

Question: So is a fetus a “living human” but not a “living person”? I’m really trying to understand because it sounds arbitrary.

Now here’s where you–unbeknownst to you– actually PROVE my point on the autonomy of state vs. the power granted to the federal government by the constitution. I’ll tell you “the quaint state’s rights argument is coming from.”

the 10th ammendment does NOT say that ALL POWERS are given to the state. Rather it says that ONLY the powers that AREN’T given to the federal government, or AREN’T prohibited by the constitution to the states–the “leftovers” if you will—are given to the state. For instance, states can’t declare war, right? Why is that? Well, because the power to declare war is given to the federal government, and the states are forbidden to do so. the 10th amendment doesn’t grant states powers UNLESS they are not given to the federal government, or forbidden to the states by the constitution. It’s not that tricky, really.

But how does the civil war fit in????
Well, one of the powers of the federal government is to protect “all men”, right? Well, the southern states were saying that the had their autonomy when it comes to owning slaves because of the 10th amendment. That would be the case IF and ONLY IF blacks weren’t human! Because, if blacks ARE human, then the power to protect the “inalienable rights” of “all men” DOES belong to the federal government.
The states were being unconstitutional because since the right to ‘liberty’ IS a constitutional right, and the power to “to secure these rights” is given to the government, the states had no choice but to treat black people as what they are—human.
In short, the right to give or take away a human’s “inalienable rights” isn’t a ‘leftover’ right, and thus it does NOT fall under the umbrella of the 10th amendment.

Now, it is only because the federal government saw blacks are humans, and therefore part of the “all people”, that the states had not autonomy on the matter.

This is where the issue of the autonomy of the states come in.
1 – IF fetuses aren’t part of the “all men” by virtue of being human, THEN what to do with fetuses IS VERY MUCH SO a leftover power. Thus, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it tramples on the 10th amendment.
In this case, the decision need to fall on the shoulders of the states.
2 – IF fetuses ARE indeed part of the “all men” by virtue of being human, THEN Roe v. wade is still unconstitutional because it tramples on the ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ of a human group that is part of ‘all men.’
In this case—as it was in the civil war—the states have NO SAY, because the power to protect ‘all men’ is not a leftover, and thus the 10th amendment does NOT grant it to the states.

It’s a catch 22
So, Brooke, when you say “I do indeed SAY that fetuses are not people”, you’re really saying nothing. The southerners that were in favor of slavery would “say” that blacks weren’t people, and that didn’t really make it so now, did it? In fact, thank you for bringing the civil war up, because the civil war is a great example of the kind of abuse and exploitation that happens when you say that a human isn’t a person with rights.

Human DNA is the most definitive way to prove that something is or was human.
So…. Here’s the thinking process.
1 – fetuses grow (I don’t think libs have gone as far as to deny that yet).
Tennis shoes DON’T grow. I mean, when was the last time you picked up you favorite mug and noticed it was 3 inches taller? The difference is that living things grow. Trees grow, and dogs grow, but sidewalks don’t grow.
Sooooooo, a fetus is a living thing. So much for the “when does live begin?” question.
2 – Now, DNA determines DEFINITIVELY what ‘type’ of thing, living things are (or were). You may even remember Oliver the “humanzee,” who walked like upright and there was this huge movement to treat him better because many suspected that he had 47 chromosomes (putting him between humans and chimps). How did they settle it? In 1996 his DNA was tested to reveal 48 chromosomes like any other chimpanzee.

sooooo…. If there’s a living thing that has turkey DNA, it sure as hell ISN’T a dog, or a cat, or a human, or your hairbrush.
A human fetus IS a living human. ‘Living’ proved by its cell division. ‘human’ proved by its DNA. Plus, it’s a difference set of DNA from the parents, so you can scientifically say that a human fetus, is a “distinct living human” because it isn’t part of the mother (like her liver, which has her own DNA), but rather the fetus is its OWN human, alive, and with its OWN set of Human DNA.

Now, I do have one question for you brooke. Suppose we were talking about the personhood for blacks instead of fetuses. You said “blacks have human rights just like I do”, and I said “well, I don’t think so.” What would you use to prove that blacks are human—as much human as whites, asians, etc?
You would appeal to “well, they are human because they have human DNA”, would you?
If not DNA, then what? How would you determine definitively that Asians are as humans as Hispanics?
Love to hear of what standards

Fetuses are not people. There, I said it again.

You say, “IF you use the genetic standard–i.e. distinct set of human DNA–then ‘fetuses’ are included”

and I respond, “I do NOT use a genetic standard, and no one else does, either.” I use (as you point out in your last post) a “live person” standard. If a fetus requires another human being to support it, it is not an individual person. It is a fetus. On the other hand, identical twins, despite sharing DNA, are TWO people, once they are born. If someone’s DNA changes over time (which it does) it doesn’t make them ANOTHER person. It makes them the same person, with slightly changed DNA. You see?

“DNA standard”. lol.

brooke:
“I do indeed say that fetuses are not people, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. DNA is not protected by the Constitution. My hairbrush is full of human DNA but it doesn’t have the vote, and never will. So, dispensed with that.”

“My hairbrush is full of human DNA but it doesn’t have the vote,”??? wow, now ladies and gentlemen, even you libs don’t think this is a good argument, do you? wow, where to begin?

for starters, 5 year-olds don’t vote, and yet are indeed protected by the constitution, so voting or not voting is a foolish point. There were times in this country when women didn’t vote. did that make women non-person?? didn’t think so.

as for your hairbruch… well, gee, let’s see. a dead person (registred voter and all) has human DNA, doesn’t he/she? what’s the difference between someone putting a bullet though a dead man’s head and through a living man’s head? maybe one is murder and the other is not…??

SOOOOOO…. Lest we miss the forest by the trees, your hairbrush isn’t alive. there’s no cell division, growth, etc.
But that’s not it, the real issue is that (amazing it’d even have to point this out) the human DNA on your brush is a contamination! the DNA isn’t ‘of’ the brush, but rather ‘on’ the brush. spit on your car and all the sudden it’s got human DNA too. come on! it’s YOUR DNA because you are human!!, because DNA is something that LIVING things have. heck, by following your logic, if you have a dog and he/she sheds, then your carpet is canine…lol

alright, alright. soooo, your hairbrush isn’t human (even though is has your hair ‘on’ it.
a human fetus, unlike your brush, has its own human DNA. has a human heart, human fingers, human legs, etc. In fact, a not because human fetus has nothing in it NOT human. and it’s DNA isn’t someone’s hair that fell on it, or the mother’s blood contaminating it, but rather its OWN human DNA, DIFFERENT from the mother’s DNA. see the difference?

not the father’s DNA, not the mother’S DNA but it’s own DNA. In fact, it’s the same DNA that will be there one that ‘fetus’ is born–doesn’t change.

alright, so that was foolish, but as j.k. chesterton says “Even a bad shot is dignified when he [or she] accepts a duel.”

Second, I do indeed say that fetuses are not people, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. DNA is not protected by the Constitution. My hairbrush is full of human DNA but it doesn’t have the vote, and never will. So, dispensed with that.

Third, I do not know where the quaint state’s rights argument is coming from, but I’ll address it. The Civil War effectively settled the issue of whether states were entitled to enact laws contrary to federal law. They aren’t.

first “And NOBODY gets to CREATE a giant arm of government to monitor the private behavior of consenting adults.”
I guess that’ll depend on the behaviour of these adults. If you mean sexually, i agree. but then you’d have to be ok with incest too. I guess necrophilia doens’t really apply because i’m assuming you mean living adults.
But if you mean ANY behaviour at all, you must be off your meds. Suppose two consenting adults want to watch child pornography in the privacy of their home. should that be allowed? what if they wanna skin a cat? allowed? shit, you can’t even start a fire in the privacy of your home–even though you own the damn thing.
In short, you CANNOT do criminal behaviour in the “privacy” of your home. it remains criminal.
what i think you mean to say is, “i don’t think sexual shit should be criminalized”. If that’s it, i agree. So long as it’s two consenting adults, i don’t think we need the “sex” police knocking on people’s door trying to see if they are having gay sex.

As for an “arm of government to monitor the private behavior of … private relationship between a woman and her healthcare provider and then CHARGE me to support it.”

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HEALTHCARE REFORM IS ABOUT. and arm of the government getting between doctor and pacient, telling your doctor what procedures, medicines, etc we can prescribe to you! and the kicked is that they will “charge [you] to support it.”
Don’t be silly brooke, the government charges up to support many programs we don’t like. when we pay taxes they get the whole thing and deligate to several different programs, etc. I don’t think that there’s a single person in this country that can honestly say “i approve 100% of how my tax money is used.” these programs are “created” all the time, and people who like it pay for it as much as people who dislike it. Planned parenthood gets my tax dollars whether i like it or not. The war got yours whether you like it or not.

But i know what you mean. you mean, you don’t want an arm of the government telling you that you can’t have an abortion. But the question isnt that, really. because the south didn’t want an arm of the government telling them how to run they business in the should, and they used the same arguments you do. They said, basically, that blacks are not “people” like they are. They are either less than human, or it they are human, they sure aren’t “persons” and therefore, they shouldn’t have the same rights that real “persons” have. You say that either human fetuses aren’t “human” or if they are, they sure aren’t “persons” like you are, and thus shouldn’t get the same rights that “real” people get.
But if human fetuses are human, you don’t get a say, anymore than plantation owners got a say.
afterall, if fetuses are human beings, even you wouldn’t be in favor of abortions. many of which are done past the development of the nervous systema, which means that the ‘fetus’ actually feels pain. plus, after the bone is calcified, suction doens’t work, so the fetus has to be desmembered and so on, and “anesthesia-free”.
that’s some crual shit. even if you say that a human fetus is worth as much as an animal, like a cat, or a pig or something, that’s pretty screwed up.
But, if it’s actually human, it’s not just screwed up, it’s killing a human. shit, even rapist get to confront their accuser before being put to death.

i’ll take these, one at the time.
first “But nobody gets the right to impose their doctrinal position on the beginning of personhood on MY government, because that violates my Constitution and my heritage.”
that actually is totally right! couldn’t agree more! But you see, the reason why it violates the constitution is because since the constitution says NOTHING about any branch of the FEDERAL government having the power to decide on “the beginning of personhood”, the 10th ammendment says that the states should be the ones deciding, not the supreme court.
Further, that all depends on how you define “all men”, in “all men are created equal”. Now, we now it’s not to be taken narrowly because “all men” implies women, and children too. Now, it’s all about the standard used for definition. IF you use the genetic standard–i.e. distinct set of human DNA–then ‘fetuses’ are included. SO, if you use the DNA standard, then it becomes a constitutional matter. Why? because it IS within the powers of the federal government to protect “all men”–whatever that means.
IF IT MEANS, BEINGS WITH DISTICT SET OF HUMAN DNA, THEN IT MEANS HUMAN FETUSES.
the declaration of independence says that humans have “unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”.
see? it’s all about how you define “all men”. most standards, aside from DNA, are arbitrary. age? gender? skin color? ethinicity?
take the nazis, they went for ethinicity…did go too well.
the KKK goes for skin color…not a good standard.

if life is HUMAN right, the standard should be “well, is it human?” if it is HUMAN, it has HUMAN RIGHTS (one of which is the right to life).

Now, people used to say that balck people didn’t share the same personhood as a white person. If they had access to DNA information (and had chosen this as the standard). in the fast, a lot of really messed up stuff would’ve been avoided if they had used the DNA standard (which is recent i know)

yes, but again, i do vote. And it would be all good if it wasnt for the fact that, even though he is not a representative of my state, his decisions do affect me. See, the constitution made it so that power that weren’t given to the federal government by the constitution (or forbidden to it by it) were to fall to the hands of the states and the people of each states. it’s the 10th ammendment i believe.
well, if this were being followed then fine. But all these senator and congressmen and congresswoman are making decisions for all of us.
for instance, a senator for texas may vote against something that you liberal like in your state. Why should someone from texas have the power to influence something that dictates what you do on your own state?? similarly, pelosi makes a decision that affects texas. Now she may be following the wishes of the people that voted for her (which is her job), but i don’t live in california, and i did not vote for her. Yet, her decisions affect me. Same with patrick kennedy. it cuts both ways.

Consider this: suppose that the conservatives take back majority in the house and senate, and they pass a bunch of pro-life legislation. Now, it may be that your representatives voted against it, but they were out numbered. So they legislation is imposed on the entire country. This isn’t constitutional. same thing with some liberal agenda items that the constitution doesn’t give the federal government the power to do.
for instance, where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can compell people to buy health insurance (or to buy anything else for that matter?). Now you may say, “we’re compell to buy car insurance”. Yes, but it’s a state thing, you see. that is constitutional. Since the constitution doesn’t say anything about the federal government forcing people to buy CAR insurance, according to the 10th ammendment, this decision falls on the states.
If you think the constitution needs to change, there’s a process for that too. but as it is today, there’s no constitutionality to forcing people to buy health insurance.
Now, maybe california likes the idea, and oklahoma doesn’t. The constitutional thing to do would be to let each state decide.
BUT, since this is being ignored, and kennedy’s decisions affect the WHOLE COUNTRY, it conserns everyone.

quite the opposite. in fact, my exact words were:
Also, I’m a conservative, NOT BECAUSE you guys are pro choice and I’m not. RATHER because you guys are for big government, controlling more and more of the economy and the everyday life of the American people, and i’m not for it.

in other words. it isn’t the life issue that makes me conservative. I was conservative in brazil where both liberals AND conservatives were pro life (that isn’t the case any longer though).
the whole point that i was making was that despite the life or choice issue, i don’t like big government. see? a little text comprehention goes a long way.

I’m still waiting on some encyclicals or church councils that did this “Defined, redefined, defined again, redefined.”
In fact, forget the “Defined, redefined, defined again, redefined”. just give me one single “defined, redefined.” and i’ll be happy.
say on coulcil that allows capital punishment, and the other that doesn’t. or one encyclicals that allows the punishment to be carried out by individuals (rather than by the state), and another that says the opposite.

one little “Defined, redefined” is all i’m asking.