FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2002, 11:22 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 1,653
Post

Would like to third Oresta's second of PITW's first.
bonduca is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 12:39 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,118
Post

Human life may be protected in the US, but certainly not fetus-life. The 14th Amendment, is the one that states that all citizens born or naturalized in the US shall enjoy all the rights. Which is a fetus?

And certainly science does not support the fact that festuses should be protected. First, science doesn't even tell us what is important and what isn't. That comes from us interpreting the data. Secondly, a fetus is alive, yes, and it is human, yes, but so are my skin cells. Shall I stop exfoliating? The bottom line is what is alive and what is human is no way to tell who should have rights given by the US Constitution. If that ever happens, in vitro needs to be a lot more available, because I sure as hell don't want to carry a baby around in my body for 9 months and be unable to make decisions for it or for myself because the Christians next door feel they have more of a right ot make those decisions than me!

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: cheetah ]</p>
cheetah is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 08:50 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Rochester NY USA
Posts: 4,318
Red face

Quote:
Originally posted by Oresta:
<strong>I could find nothing on President Washington's proclamation, but here is a contemporary objection....</strong>
Whoops, here's the link to <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1789thanksgiving.html" target="_blank">Washington's proclamation</a>. Thanks to fromtheright for the original allusion to this, I admit I was quite surprised to see something like this from GW. Thankfully nothing in the proclamation specifically mentions xianity, although it looks like a monotheism is implicit. I guess you could stretch it to include a deist prime mover. Again, GW was writing to an almost exclusively xian and deist audience, and without the benefit of the important state/church SCOTUS rulings. Good job by Oresta showing that there were others besides the insignificant Payne, Adams, and Jefferson who were concerned about state/church independence back then.

Andy (PITW)
PopeInTheWoods is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 02:03 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 762
Post

I think this is the second stage: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3369-2002Jan31.html" target="_blank">Feds: Fetus Called 'Unborn Child'</a>

Quote: A developing fetus may be classified as an "unborn child" eligible for government health care.
Kevin Dorner is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 03:54 PM   #35
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Covina, CA
Posts: 19
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally posted by PopeInTheWoods:
<strong>Oh, yeah, I forgot. The nice pro-lifers who bomb clinics, shoot doctors, and propogate anthrax hoaxes somehow also tend towards theism. Consider my vitriol spewed upon them as well.

Andy (PITW)</strong>
It's funny how Dubya the Terrible claims to be waging war on terrorism while lending his support to such terrorists as Randall Terry of Operation ResKKKue and all the other "pro-life" goon squads.
Slayer Moon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:08 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.