[See5]

Originally Posted by incantana

What circumstances are those? You act as if he hasn't been in power for 4 years.

Can't do much if Congress tries to vote against any measure you try to put in place.

Anyway, I've said my part. They vote will be cast tomorrow even if it doesn't count(Georgia is going to Romney without question).

[incantana]

Originally Posted by See5

Chrysler might be doing better now than any time in recent history. They have been on fire on the sales charts. Fiat is tanking in Europe however.

GM is nowhere close to heading towards bankruptcy. Anyone saying otherwise is fear mongering.

This is simply not true. However, even if we assume it is true, the fact that you can only attack one statement is very telling. What about all of the other stats that add up to prove that the economy has hit the sh!ts?

[incantana]

Originally Posted by See5

Can't do much if Congress tries to vote against any measure you try to put in place.

Anyway, I've said my part. They vote will be cast tomorrow even if it doesn't count(Georgia is going to Romney without question).

Obama had congress under complete control for his first 2 years in office....a very rare advantage to have. You cant blame this on congress.

[See5]

Originally Posted by incantana

This is simply not true. However, even if we assume it is true, the fact that you can only attack one statement is very telling. What about all of the other stats that add up to prove that the economy has hit the sh!ts?

Oh its true. Just type in Chrysler sales in google.

As for not addressing the other points, I don't want to spend the time and I'm wise enough not to write paragraphs on things I don't entirely understand.

[incantana]

Originally Posted by See5

Oh its true. Just type in Chrysler sales in google.

As for not addressing the other points, I don't want to spend the time and I'm wise enough not to write paragraphs on things I don't entirely understand.

61% of Chrysler is owned by Fiat...an ITALIAN company....so I guess Italy is atl east benefiting from our government dollars.

And if you do not understand that unemployment at 15% for blacks is bad, if you don't understand that 5 million fewer women working is bad, if you don't understand that being in the longest recession in our country's history is bad....you shouldn't vote.

[See5]

Originally Posted by incantana

And if you do not understand that unemployment at 15% for blacks is bad, if you don't understand that 5 million fewer women working is bad, if you don't understand that being in the longest recession in our country's history is bad....you shouldn't vote.

Oh I understand those issues, just not enough to give you each and every detail and reason behind those figures. It's very easy to throw some numbers out there and label them as bad.

[incantana]

Originally Posted by See5

Oh I understand those issues, just not enough to give you each and every detail and reason behind those figures. It's very easy to throw some numbers out there and label them as bad.

So you understand the issues but not enough to know if they are bad? So would you say they could possibly be good? Please....go on.

Now I know why you're voting for Obama. Blind Loyalty. You would think the issue is important enough to at least grasp why a terrible economy is bad.

[BuraQ]

Originally Posted by gary88

Did anyone realistically think he could balance $10 trillion of debt, end two wars, and bring unemployment to 4% in just four years?

It's like blaming him for not cleaning the mess up fast enough and voting back in the party that helped cause it.

Bingo.....lets say if Romney does get elected, they will take credit for the "already increasing job and decreasing uneployment, and healing economy.

Fortunately for us, Obama will have another 4 years to finish what he started

[incantana]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

Bingo.....lets say if Romney does get elected, they will take credit for the "already increasing job and decreasing uneployment, and healing economy.

Fortunately for us, Obama will have another 4 years to finish what he started

an honest question: if Obama does win and the economy continues to stall or barely improve or become worse....none of which would be good....would you then blame Obama?

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by JoeyBananaz18

obviously I understand that. But it's the woman that carries that baby for 9 months. It's the woman that would go into labor with that baby, or would ultimately have the final say in having an abortion.

Please forgive me, I don't mean to criticize, I really don't. It's just that I read that line and took from it that a woman doesn't really have as much say in having an abortion as she should.

Not only that, but ~100% of the matter inside the body of the baby is supplied by the mother.

Personally I see it as a resource issue.

How can a 3rd party demand that a mother use her most personal resources (proteins/atp/etc) to build a child, for the 3rd party (as it's the 3rd party that wants it built) ... when the 3rd party will never have to raise that child or contribute to it in any way.

I might as well demand that my neighbor builds a separate garage ... because I feel like they should really have a separate garage ... even though I'll never use it, pay for it, or set foot in it.

It's a 3rd party capture of domain rights, property rights, etc.
Might as well sanction slavery... if you're already turning women into rightless state-controlled baby incubators.

Now I understand that the religious would consider the "make lots of babies" directive sacred, and their belief is that god's will applies to all believers and non-believers, and that it's their duty to shape society by god's will...
But really, mind your own business...

If we go down that path, we're headed for Levitican/Sharia law.

And we all know the "conception is life" assertion is just a way to recycle/leverage the law (murder) in order to promote the religious agenda to make more people.
After all, if a brick doesn't make a house, then a blastocyst doesn't make a person.
But if it does, then I've got a whole stack of houses to sell you...

-scheherazade

[Dozhdbog]

fivethirtyeight has Obama leading in key swing states and nationally, and the gap has widened over the past few days. Based on aggregating polling data, it posits over an 85% chance that Obama will win.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[incantana]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Not only that, but ~100% of the matter inside the body of the baby is supplied by the mother.

Personally I see it as a resource issue.

How can a 3rd party demand that a mother use her most personal resources (proteins/atp/etc) to build a child, for the 3rd party (as it's the 3rd party that wants it built) ... when the 3rd party will never have to raise that child or contribute to it in any way.

I might as well demand that my neighbor builds a separate garage ... because I feel like they should really have a separate garage ... even though I'll never use it, pay for it, or set foot in it.

-scheherazade

That logic could be extrapolated to other areas such as welfare. Why should I be forced to deplete my resources by a third party (liberals) for something that I will never utilize?

The reason that conservatives believe abortion is wrong has nothing to do with freedom of choice and everything to do with the constitution. The constitution guarantees us the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives believe that a 6month old unborn child who could be born and breath on their own is in fact a human. As a human it has the right to life.

Just as I do not have the CHOICE to go murder someone because I would be depriving them of life, the argument goes that by killing the baby you are depriving it of life.

Liberals do not believe the baby is a human being. That is how they justify abortion.

Conservatives believe it is a human and is thus protected by the constitution. Abortion is denying unborn American's their right to life. Conservative do not see it as a choice issue any more than killing any other person is a choice.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the unborn child is actually a human. If this is the case, what a massive tragedy abortion has been.

I feel that when it comes to innocent life or the possibility of innocent life, all precautions should be taken. There is a very real chance that the baby is a human. Why not protect that human at the risk of eliminating a choice rather than protect the choice at the risk of killing countless unborn Americans?

I do find it ironic that liberals are all for promoting abortion but by in large go frantic at the idea of the death penalty. Lets see....kill an unborn child...ok! Kill a serial rapist....thats terrible!

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by incantana

That logic could be extrapolated to other areas such as welfare. Why should I be forced to deplete my resources by a third party (liberals) for something that I will never utilize?

The reason that conservatives believe abortion is wrong has nothing to do with freedom of choice and everything to do with the constitution. The constitution guarantees us the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives believe that a 6month old unborn child who could be born and breath on their own is in fact a human. As a human it has the right to life.

Just as I do not have the CHOICE to go murder someone because I would be depriving them of life, the argument goes that by killing the baby you are depriving it of life.

Liberals do not believe the baby is a human being. That is how they justify abortion.

Conservatives believe it is a human and is thus protected by the constitution. Abortion is denying unborn American's their right to life. Conservative do not see it as a choice issue any more than killing any other person is a choice.

I do find it ironic that liberals are all for promoting abortion but by in large go frantic at the idea of the death penalty. Lets see....kill an unborn child...ok! Kill a serial rapist....thats terrible!

The state government charges the state to maintain services that it provides for the state.
They are available to you whenever you need them.
If you don't pay, you get the stick.

You also don't get anything from the insurance company unless you need their help.
But you're still paying all the time.
You pay for 'availability' of service, not service.
And if you don't pay, you get booted off.

So long as you're a citizen of the state, you have this state government service availability, and you're expected to pay your rightful share.
You can always relinquish your citizenship, ssn, etc, and not pay for welfare.

But in general, I agree with you.
You should have the ability to opt out and not have a service, and not pay its associated tax burden.





Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness applies to women too.
You don't get to take another person's freedom to make them work for you.
That's big government if there ever was any, and it's the government getting into personal/family matters.
Conservatives are against big government, and government running your personal life.

People are complex machines.
They take time to build.
You don't have a person because you started making one.
You simply have a person in progress.

Some people say there's 'potential' there that needs to be preserved.
But I say that I had the 'potential' to be an astronaut.
My obituary isn't gonna say that "we lost an astronaut", it's gonna say "some a-hole died".
Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda ... doesn't matter what you could have done.

Life at conception is a religious view, stemming from a canonical need to multiply, and the concept of a soul.
It's not a "conservative" value.




Liberals tend to favor the rights of the living over the rights of the yet to be around. Go figure.




Personally, to me, life is intelligence.

As a species, we as a group have differentiated ourselves from other "animals" by our judgment that our "intelligence" is above some threshold. That we think and feel at another level, and that our level of awareness makes any suffering that we endure particularly heinous. Hence you slaughter a cow, but can't punch a person.
Personally, I don't see a 'glob' in someone's stomach as intelligent, so to me, it's not a person - yet.

I prefer to focus on the intelligent 'person' that's alive, and fully conscious of her state of being in society, and the world in general. Someone who will know that they are being oppressed, and will have to go through the mental torment of having her liberty taken away.
I wouldn't sacrifice a 'persons' life/freedom/liberty/pursuit of happiness, and turn her into a state controlled incubator - for the mere satisfaction of other 'persons' [who have no domain in the matter to begin with].

-scheherazade

[401FlaGATOR]

The problem I see with Obama is that it is true that he inherited a bad economic situation but the cure he applied did not heal the economy properly and introduced a bad side effect that is effectively killing the patient!

It is true the recession started in June 2007 and ended officially in June of 2009. 6 months after Obama took office. However the job creation remained anemic, the growth rate was under 2%.... WHAT HAPPENED? Every other time we would always come roaring back from previous recessions?

What happened was that as the disease was cured (recession) the cure backfired and caused side effects which are keeping our economy under wraps even today.

And that side effect is called by economists the "debt implosion cycle" which happens every fifty or sixty years. 1760, 1840's, 1890's, 1930's, and when this happens the debt levels rise to such a point both public and private througout the world that investors and consumers panic and rush for the exits.

FDR said it best in his inaugural when he said the only thing we have to "fear is fear itself".

This fear becomes so palpable that no matter how much money you pump out there people aren't going to spend it.

So consumers have paid down their credit card bills and personal debt by as much as 1 trillion dollars since Obama took office but its terrible for the economy because they haven't spent much in a way that would stimulate the economy. Businesses have done the same thing to the tune that they have 2 Trillion on hand at the moment sitting in banks earning no interest.

Collectively they are so fearful about this economy that they would rather squirrel it away than invest it back into this economy or their own businesses to grow them.This is the outcome of QE1, QE2, QEx. This leaves us with a Catch 22 where no one has the collateral to borrow this money and the banks deem things to risky to lend.

So basically even though Obama lent out all this money to stop the loss of faith in the system the fear still crept in destroying faith in the economic system.

When Obama saw this he borrowed another trillion and another and another! All the way to 6 trillion dollars in debt. The spending providing a temporary boost followed by the same end reaction.

From George Washington til Obama took office we borrowed 10 Trillion, since Obama we now borrowed 6 Trillion more than that. This pattern has repeated across the globe by many countries to such an extent that the entire world is living in supreme fear these days.

And here is the crux of the matter Obama will continue to apply this remedy if he is allowed to continue.

It's a little bit like in the Middle Ages when a guy was dying from some disease and they would try and heal him through bloodletting and when that didn't work they would continue the treatment until the patient was down 100% blood which can prove fatal 9 times out of 10.

Now I belive that Romney will stop this. We just need to STOP! Cut the spending, cut the borrowing, cut the deficit, give the economy a little room to breathe and that will allow people to realize, "We're Ok", and when they realize this they will wade back into the economy bringing everyone, including the EURO zone and the rest of the world back from the brink.

This is where Romney's tax cut plan is simply brilliant! It's not really a tax cut in that it will maintain the same amount of tax receivables into the federal government by cutting out many tax deductions. Why will that be effective? Because when you wake up every morning you know you are going to work and the feds will take 1/3 of everyhing you make, under Romney they will take 1/4.

You won't keep 2/3 you will keep 3/4!

And this will give everyone an incentive to work and to earn and to invest. He'll cut the capital gains tax to make it easier to make money on your investments. When this happens money is going to come flooding in to the Treasury from the increased productivity of the average American worker.

PEACE!

[incantana]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

The state government charges the state to maintain services that it provides for the state.
They are available to you whenever you need them.
If you don't pay, you get the stick.

You also don't get anything from the insurance company unless you need their help.
But you're still paying all the time.
You pay for 'availability' of service, not service.
And if you don't pay, you get booted off.





Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness applies to women too.
You don't get to take another person's freedom to make them work for you.
That's big government if there ever was any, and it's the government getting into personal/family matters.
Conservatives are against big government, and government running your personal life.

People are complex machines.
They take time to build.
You don't have a person because you started making one.
You simply have a person in progress.

Some people say there's 'potential' there that needs to be preserved.
But I say that I had the 'potential' to be an astronaut.
My obituary isn't gonna say that "we lost an astronaut", it's gonna say "some a-hole died".
Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda ... doesn't matter what you could have done.

Life at conception is a religious view, stemming from a canonical need to multiply, and the concept of a soul.
It's not a "conservative" value.




Liberals tend to favor the rights of the living over the rights of the yet to be around. Go figure.




Personally, to me, life is intelligence.

As a species, we as a group have differentiated ourselves from other "animals" by our judgment that our "intelligence" is above some threshold.
Personally, I don't see a 'glob' in someone's stomach as intelligent, so to me, it's not a person - yet.

I prefer to focus on the intelligent 'person' that's alive, and fully conscious of her state of being in society, and the world in general.
I wouldn't sacrifice a 'persons' freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and turn her into a state controlled incubator - for the mere satisfaction of other 'persons' - who have no domain in the matter to begin with.

-scheherazade

I wasn't speaking about conception. I was talking about a 6, 7, 8 month old that can live and breath on its own. How can you justify aborting that? if you removed the child from the mother at that point in time it will live. Its not someithing "in progress". Its already a living human.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

The state government charges the state to maintain services that it provides for the state.
They are available to you whenever you need them.
If you don't pay, you get the stick.

You also don't get anything from the insurance company unless you need their help.
But you're still paying all the time.
You pay for 'availability' of service, not service.
And if you don't pay, you get booted off.

So long as you're a citizen of the state, you have this state government service availability, and you're expected to pay your rightful share.
You can always relinquish your citizenship, ssn, etc, and not pay for welfare.





Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness applies to women too.
You don't get to take another person's freedom to make them work for you.
That's big government if there ever was any, and it's the government getting into personal/family matters.
Conservatives are against big government, and government running your personal life.

People are complex machines.
They take time to build.
You don't have a person because you started making one.
You simply have a person in progress.

Some people say there's 'potential' there that needs to be preserved.
But I say that I had the 'potential' to be an astronaut.
My obituary isn't gonna say that "we lost an astronaut", it's gonna say "some a-hole died".
Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda ... doesn't matter what you could have done.

Life at conception is a religious view, stemming from a canonical need to multiply, and the concept of a soul.
It's not a "conservative" value.




Liberals tend to favor the rights of the living over the rights of the yet to be around. Go figure.




Personally, to me, life is intelligence.

As a species, we as a group have differentiated ourselves from other "animals" by our judgment that our "intelligence" is above some threshold.
Personally, I don't see a 'glob' in someone's stomach as intelligent, so to me, it's not a person - yet.

I prefer to focus on the intelligent 'person' that's alive, and fully conscious of her state of being in society, and the world in general. Someone who will know that they are being oppressed, and will have to go through the mental torment of having her liberty taken away.
I wouldn't sacrifice a 'persons' freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and turn her into a state controlled incubator - for the mere satisfaction of other 'persons' [who have no domain in the matter to begin with].

-scheherazade

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], is when the fetus' heart starts beating and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

Tell these intelligent people that there are contraceptives available to them should they not wish to procreate.

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by incantana

I wasn't speaking about conception. I was talking about a 6, 7, 8 month old that can live and breath on its own. How can you justify aborting that? if you removed the child from the mother at that point in time it will live. Its not someithing "in progress". Its already a living human.

If you want to make a law mandating that all abortions at that late of a term are c-sections, and the child becomes a ward of the state, then have at it.
If you want the state to require the kid, then lets have the state raise the kid.
If you want to make it your business, then step up.
It's easy to demand someone else to do something when you'll never have to get your own hands dirty.

Apart from that, it's still not any more intelligent than a lot of creatures we don't give a damn about.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], is when the fetus' heart starts beating and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

Tell these intelligent people that there are contraceptives available to them should they not wish to procreate.

Same goes for a rat.
Not many tears shed over them.

-scheherazade

[incantana]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

If you want to make a law mandating that all abortions at that late of a term are c-sections, and the child becomes a ward of the state, then have at it.
If you want the state to require the kid, then lets have the state raise the kid.
If you want to make it your business, then step up.
It's easy to demand someone else to do something when you'll never have to get your own hands dirty.

Apart from that, it's still not any more intelligent than a lot of creatures we don't give a damn about.



Same goes for a rat.
Not many tears shed over them.

-scheherazade

Equating a human to a rat is nonsense. The question isn't who will raise the kid. It is more fundamental than that. The question is whether or not abortion constitutes the denial of a constitutional right.

When a baby is 8 months old and can live and breath on its own, do you support the ability to abort that baby? To bring intelligence into the equation is also nonsensical. Humanity is not based on a certain level of intelligence. Many severally mentally handicapped individuals exist as citizens but killing them is illegal.

As soon as a baby is "born" it would be murder to kill it as well. Intelligence is not taken into account. You're argument is flawed because you assume that raising the child is the point of contention. That is not the issue with abortion. It is the denial of a constitutional right to life.

Furthermore, suggesting it is anyone's "business" is intellectually bare. Enforcing the law of this country is not something that people do because its their "business". They do it because it is our responsibility to make sure our rights are intact.

The right to life is the most basic of human rights. To deny the right to life in favor of the right to kill is not constitutional. A right to kill does not exist. Furthermore, If a baby can survive at 8 months, it is a human. However, it is still currently legal to kill that baby. This makes no sense.

[401FlaGATOR]

Condensed Version..

It is true the recession started in June 2007 and ended officially in June of 2009. 6 months after Obama took office. However the job creation remained anemic, the growth rate was under 2%.... WHAT HAPPENED? Every other time we would always come roaring back from previous recessions?

What happened was that as the disease was cured (recession) the cure backfired and caused side effects which are keeping our economy under wraps even today.

And that side effect is called by economists the "debt implosion cycle" which happens every fifty or sixty years. 1760, 1840's, 1890's, 1930's, and when this happens the debt levels rise to such a point both public and private througout the world that investors and consumers panic and rush for the exits.

This is where Romney's tax cut plan is simply brilliant! It's not really a tax cut in that it will maintain the same amount of tax receivables into the federal government by cutting out many tax deductions. Why will that be effective? Because when you wake up every morning you know you are going to work and the feds will take 1/3 of everyhing you make, under Romney they will take 1/4.

You won't keep 2/3 you will keep 3/4!

PEACE!

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by incantana

Equating a human to a rat is nonsense. The question isn't who will raise the kid. It is more fundamental than that. The question is whether or not abortion constitutes the denial of a constitutional right.

When a baby is 8 months old and can live and breath on its own, do you support the ability to abort that baby? To bring intelligence into the equation is also nonsensical. Humanity is not based on a certain level of intelligence. Many severally mentally handicapped individuals exist as citizens but killing them is illegal.

As soon as a baby is "born" it would be murder to kill it as well. Intelligence is not taken into account. You're argument is flawed because you assume that raising the child is the point of contention. That is not the issue with abortion. It is the denial of a constitutional right to life.

Furthermore, suggesting it is anyone's "business" is intellectually bare. Enforcing the law of this country is not something that people do because its their "business". They do it because it is our responsibility to make sure our rights are intact.

The right to life is the most basic of human rights. To deny the right to life in favor of the right to kill is not constitutional. A right to kill does not exist. Furthermore, If a baby can survive at 8 months, it is a human. However, it is still currently legal to kill that baby. This makes no sense.

I never equated a person to a rat.
The meaning is as such:
- The stated terms also apply to a rat.
- Those terms are not enough to mark a rat as special.
- Hence there's no reason why those terms should mark a fetus as special.
- Hence the person should find a different set of terms to describe what would make a fetus special.

But if you want to go that route, then yes, we're all groups of cells, with the same fundamental building blocks.
In practical terms, what makes 'people' different, is our level of intelligence.

You could go the route of natural selection, and say that as a group we compete with other groups. So elimination/subjugation of other groups is in our nature. Hence we place ourselves above all other live forms.

Unless your argument is religious. In which case you're protecting a soul and supporting the will of god.

However, regardless of why you define a person as special, you still have to define a person (human being).
Making that definition before birth is doing so using properties that are 'non-special and non-unique to human beings'.

After birth arguments, while having a place in philosophy, are not practical. As described below at the (*).




Law exists to protect us from trespass by others.
Most are extrusions of trespass.
Theft is someone without domain possessing your property.
Copyright is a subset of theft protection.
Assault/Murder is a trespass on your body.
etc.
But the fundamental principle is restricting the rights of one person to prevent them from violating the rights of another person.
We as a group decided that we will protect each other from each other's trespasses, and we have institutions to accomplish that.

And yes, those laws apply to the mentally handicapped, as do all laws for anyone who's been 'completed' (exists/is).

*Birth is an easy line to draw.
Measuring intelligence is difficult, because you end up arguing over thresholds. Exactly 'how' intelligent do you have to be?
That would be a very hard discussion to have, as the threshold would intrinsically be an opinion.



Taking a woman's rights away to make her serve the purpose of a state controlled incubator, is a grave trespass on her.
It's a form of slavery. You require that she do a job, for you. She is not willing, she gets no compensation, and is punished if she does not do the job.

And it really is a matter of 'business', because your domain is your business, and other people's domain isn't.
You wouldn't accept a stranger coming into your house, they've violating your domain.
How can you accept a stranger coming into your womb? That's a far more personal violation.




Raising the child is not the core "can we" or "can't we" item.
It however illustrates the selfishness/hypocrisy of 3rd parties.
It's very easy to trespass on others, but difficult to be trespassed upon.
People love to cry about 'big government', but feel no empathy when using 'big government' as weapon to wield their will.

-scheherazade

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by incantana

The question is whether or not abortion constitutes the denial of a constitutional right.

IMHO, the problem with clinging to the constitution for everything is that it is a very old document that was written for a time when options and choices like we have today didnt exist. And, in all fairness to the original authors, these options could not be anticipated to exist. It is a set of rules for a VERY different time, and unfortunately, while there are many great aspects of it, there are some weak aspects to it as well, since it has not been updated as needed. Everything was simpler, judgement calls were more black and white.

The grey areas we discuss today that aborting a fetus at point X is not murder, but at point Y it is, were not even conceivable back then (no pun intended).

Now, a very premature baby can be removed from it's mother, hooked up to a variety of machines, and can survive and even grow to be a full size normal person. Back when the constitution was written, such a thing was about as inconceivable as going to the moon would have been at the time. However, such rigid adherence to rules from another time gives us dilemmas the forefathers could not have possibly anticipated.

I'm sure when the notion of the constitutional right to life was being developed back then, nobody had any idea that one day it would involve having to make a judgement call over whether the 1st-trimester fetus inside a mother is an independent, sentient "life" or not. If it has brain activity, is it a life ? Back then, the concept of scanning and measuring brain activity in a fetus while it is still in the womb, would be as far fetched as the idea of time travel is to us.

If someone perfects time travel 200 years from now, wont that open up a whole rats nest of moral and ethical issues that makes it impossible to apply today's laws in a meaningful way?

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

IMHO, the problem with clinging to the constitution for everything is that it is a very old document that was written for a time when options and choices like we have today didnt exist. And, in all fairness to the original authors, these options could not be anticipated to exist. It is a set of rules for a VERY different time, and unfortunately, while there are many great aspects of it, there are some weak aspects to it as well, since it has not been updated as needed. Everything was simpler, judgement calls were more black and white.

The grey areas we discuss today that aborting a fetus at point X is not murder, but at point Y it is, were not even conceivable back then (no pun intended).

Now, a very premature baby can be removed from it's mother, hooked up to a variety of machines, and can survive and even grow to be a full size normal person. Back when the constitution was written, such a thing was about as inconceivable as going to the moon would have been at the time. However, such rigid adherence to rules from another time gives us dilemmas the forefathers could not have possibly anticipated.

I'm sure when the notion of the constitutional right to life was being developed back then, nobody had any idea that one day it would involve having to make a judgement call over whether the 1st-trimester fetus inside a mother is an independent, sentient "life" or not. If it has brain activity, is it a life ? Back then, the concept of scanning and measuring brain activity in a fetus while it is still in the womb, would be as far fetched as the idea of time travel is to us.

If someone perfects time travel 200 years from now, wont that open up a whole rats nest of moral and ethical issues that makes it impossible to apply today's laws in a meaningful way?

The founders were very property oriented.
Originally, the only people that had a say were people with land.
Because it simply wasn't anyone else's domain to have a say over.
And early government in general had very limited reach into personal lives - and they were careful to restrict the rights of the government.
Today's system would look totalitarian compared to what they built.

-scheherazade