[DanDaMan]

Why is crushing the skull and sucking out the brains of a baby in the womb is a "constitutional right"?

[Fasces]

Why is injecting a lethal chemical into a man's vein constitutionally permittable? Why is depriving men of food, shelter, and proper care on the basis of the amount of coins in their pocket at all desirable?

If one is to protect life, he must protect all life, and not pick and choose which lives are worth protecting. That is the role of God, not man.

[DanDaMan]

What church do you go to that validates the crushing of a childs skull and then sucking its brains out?

[Fasces]

No. Abortion is morally abhorrent. So is the death penalty. So is death through societal negligence. You seem to have little problem with the latter two, which means you have no problem with determining who lives or dies.

Is one of man's rights that of playing God?

[DanDaMan]

Start another thread on that if you like.
Here, I just want to keep within my OP.


So... to start fresh...
Why is crushing the skull and sucking out the brains of a baby in the womb a "constitutional right"?

[Fasces]

It is part of the same question, DDM, as killing fetuses is most certainly man playing God - choosing who is born and who is not.

[Wolfman]

Not to mention he just discribed abortion incorrectly in a way that is completely false.

From a Pro-Life, Anti-Death Penalty Liberal.

[DanDaMan]

It is part of the same question, DDM, as killing fetuses is most certainly man playing God - choosing who is born and who is not.

OK then. I'll play your game...
Is killing a fetus and executing a convicted killer constitutional?

[Wolfman]

Niether are. DUH!

I think there's something about cruel and unusual and punishment somewhere in the Constitution. Killing people is certainly cruel.

[Le Rouge]

There are no babies in wombs, only fetuses.

[DanDaMan]

Is killing a fetus and executing a convicted killer constitutional?

Niether are. DUH!

I think there's something about cruel and unusual and punishment somewhere in the Constitution. Killing people is certainly cruel.

But that does not explain why the Democrats/liberals think crushing a babies skull and sucking it's brains out is a constitutional right!

Shouldn't, by your logic, Liberals/constitutionalists oppose both and not just one?

[Wolfman]

First of all - If you're going to explain the process behind an abortion instead of saying abortion, why not use what ACTUALLY happens.
Second all - I don't give a damn what either major party says because they're both idiotic right wing conservative parties that haven't had an orginal idea since FDR, and few before that.
Third of all - Stop assuming that because I'm a Liberal that I know what the justification for what are that are used by the DNC. I'm not in the damn DNC, and you wont find many Liberals on this site who are.
Fourth of all - Constitutionalists are morons, since the Constitution wasn't intended or expected to last nearly as long as it has, and our government has collapsed twice already, and really needs to replaced.
Fifth of all - Stop trying argue basic political theory, Constitutional Law, and current political practices all at once. You're ok at the modern part, but the rest is just ignorant.

[Zyx]

DanDaMan, it's not unethical if something inferior to humanity were treated improperly for non-sadistic reasons.

If one were to cut a tree, ending its life, for the sake of building a necessary table, few would cry a tear.

Even locking a cat in a house, feeding it few meals, isn't, in itself, unethical.

The point is, DanDaMan, a 'fetus' is not on par with a 'woman.' Children aren't even on par with adults, but they are much more independent than fetuses. The main reason for not killing children is the lack of function in it. Killing a fetus has a function, however. Much like killing a tree or shooting a deer would.

[Fasces]

Is killing a fetus and executing a convicted killer constitutional?

If one is, the other is. If one is not, the other is not.

[DanDaMan]

The point is, DanDaMan, a 'fetus' is not on par with a 'woman.' Children aren't even on par with adults, but they are much more independent than fetuses. The main reason for not killing children is the lack of function in it. Killing a fetus has a function, however. Much like killing a tree or shooting a deer would

Except a deer or tree never grows to an adult human. So your logic is flawed.
Only what's in a woman grows to a full adult human being. Nothing else does that.


I still haven't got an explanation as to why crushing the skull and sucking the brains out of a child is a constitutional right!

[The Immortal Goon]

But that does not explain why the Democrats/liberals think crushing a babies skull and sucking it's brains out is a constitutional right!

I'm guessing they think it's a constitutional right since the Supreme Court, which interprets constitutional rights, deemed it to be so:

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here [Roe v. Wade], that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

And

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

...

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

I would say the fact that it was deemed constitutional by the people on the planet best qualified to deem something constitutional is a pretty good reason to assume it's constitutional. In fact, I'd say it's your responsibility to argue that it's not constitutional and not the other way around.

[Zyx]

Except a deer or tree never grows to an adult human.

Being and becoming are two separate things.

Moreover, one can only interpret morality on things capable of morality. A fetus is incapable of being moral, hence holding it to moral standards or acting moral to it are wasted enterprises.

Further, TIG points out that it is constitutional.

[Socrates Johnson]

Being and becoming are two separate things.

That's a good point. I when dealing with the embryo obsessed it helps to explain things this way:

You're standing in a fertility clinic and a fire breaks out. You can either save 100 embryos or a 4 year old child. Which do you save and why?

(It's not one I made up although I wish I had because it's quite good)

[Silence]

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is 'worth' less than an adult, so killing it for good reason is right in the same way as killing am animal is right as long as it's not just for the sake of causing pain. It should be a right to chose what effects your own life, when you're talking about something that's effectively sub-human.

[NoRapture]

You don't crush the skull first. This gets bone chips in the brain matter. For best results insert the sharp end of the suction tube into the temple area. Then you can either suck the brains out raw through the tube or let the compressor do it. Either way, they're delicious.