California Senate approves bill requiring presidential candidates to submit tax returns

[kallend 2,147]

I doubt it has ever occurred to you that pretty much all legal documents from passports to drop-zone waivers ask for your date of BIRTH, not for your date of conception or first detectable heartbeat.  Your ability, citizen or not, to purchase alcohol depends on your BIRTH date.

Nowhere in the Constitution is any reference made to the start of anyone's rights except at birth. 

You and your ilk are artificially fabricating a new definition of 'person' to align with your Taliban-like ideology.  

[billvon 3,114]

7 minutes ago, kallend said:

I doubt it has ever occurred to you that pretty much all legal documents from passports to drop-zone waivers ask for your date of BIRTH, not for your date of conception or first detectable heartbeat.  Your ability, citizen or not, to purchase alcohol depends on your BIRTH date.

Right.  But just because the date you are allowed to purchase alcohol is the day you turn 21 does not mean that you have no rights before that.

The 14th amendment defines who is a citizen for the purpose of US laws.  It also lists some basic rights all people have.  It does not define the term "people."

[Coreece 190]

 

22 minutes ago, kallend said:

31 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What's lame is your chronic inability to admit, or even recognize your fallacious logic.

I doubt it has ever occurred to you, blah, blah blah. . .

QED

[kallend 2,147]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Right.  But just because the date you are allowed to purchase alcohol is the day you turn 21 does not mean that you have no rights before that.

 

Where did I claim otherwise.

The point is that nowhere in any founding documents is the concept that anything other than BIRTH important.  Being born is, however, found in several places.

Do you have any documentation to show that the founders included or even implied the inclusion of  fetuses when mentioning "the people" or "person"?

Tell me, does the waiver at your DZ ask for date of BIRTH?  How about your passport? Auto insurance? Social Security account?

 

•  
• Quote
•  
• Edit

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by kallend

[kallend 2,147]

...

Edited May 20, 2019 by kallend
duplicate

[billvon 3,114]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

Where did I claim otherwise.

The point is that nowhere in any founding documents is the concept that anything other than BIRTH important.  Being born is, however, found in several places.

Do you have any documentation to show that the founders included or even implied the inclusion of  fetuses when mentioning "the people" or "person"?

Nope.  Nor did they discuss airplane pilots, or ship's captains, or Alaskans.  To conclude, therefore, that the founding fathers did not think that these groups deserved rights would be silly.

[kallend 2,147]

17 hours ago, billvon said:

Nope.  Nor did they discuss airplane pilots, or ship's captains, or Alaskans.  To conclude, therefore, that the founding fathers did not think that these groups deserved rights would be silly.

Tell me, does the waiver at your DZ ask for date of BIRTH?  How about your passport? Auto insurance? Social Security account?

There is no evidence going all the way back to Common law that fetuses have ever been considered to be persons.

And don't try any more strawman arguments.

[billvon 3,114]

21 minutes ago, kallend said:

Tell me, does the waiver at your DZ ask for date of BIRTH?  How about your passport? Auto insurance? Social Security account?

?? Yes.  It also asks for my USPA number.  Doesn't mean that people without USPA numbers are not people.

Your arguments are getting very silly.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

?? Yes.  It also asks for my USPA number.  Doesn't mean that people without USPA numbers are not people.

Your arguments are getting very silly.

Not really.

He's making the valid argument that an unborn fetus is not considered a person and never has been.

No rights, no privileges, not counted in the census, not insured, not eligible for USPA membership (although I know a bunch of kids who had multiple jumps before their birth).

Historically, a fetus wasn't considered anything until the 'quickening'. When it started to move.

In those times, an abortion could be performed prior, but not after. A woman could be executed prior, but not after. There were a variety of things that were distinguished by 'pre' and 'post' quickening.

Interestingly, that milestone in a pregnancy is about where modern science has made the fetus viable outside the womb.

I'm somewhat willing to debate the morality of aborting a viable (outside the womb) fetus. But I have no issue whatsoever with a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy before that time.  At that point, it should be her decision, in consultation with her doctor. We've had a bit of back and forth in the past about including the doctor in the decision, but I feel that trained and qualified medical personnel should always be consulted for a medical procedure.

Slate story about the history of "quickening":
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/05/the-quickening-the-momentous-pregnancy-event-that-became-a-relic.html

[Coreece 190]

37 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

He's making the valid argument that an unborn fetus is not considered a person and never has been.

Saying that non citizens don't have rights is not a valid argument.

[normiss 893]

Non human globs of mass aren't ever citizens.

[billvon 3,114]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Not really.

He's making the valid argument that an unborn fetus is not considered a person and never has been.

He's making an argument that the Constitution has guidance on whether a fetus is a person or not.  It does not.  It says nothing on that topic, just as it says nothing on a great many other topics.  Like the Bible, it is often interpreted to mean whatever people want it to mean.  But from what the words actually say, the Constitution confers no specific status, person or not, on fetuses.

[billvon 3,114]

32 minutes ago, normiss said:

Non human globs of mass aren't ever citizens.

Careful there.  Africans were once labeled in a similar manner.  It took a lot of fighting - and an amendment to the Constitution - to change that.

[wmw999 2,587]

Thanks, wolfriverjoe. Good post. It reflects my views, so of course I think it’s good 

Wendy P. 

[Coreece 190]

 

14 hours ago, Coreece said:

Saying that non citizens don't have rights is not a valid argument.

13 hours ago, normiss said:

Non human globs of mass aren't ever citizens.

How does that follow what I said?  We've already determined that according to article 14, the unborn don't fit the definition of a citizen, but that has nothing to do with whether or not non-citizens have rights.

. . .and btw, if it's not a human embryo, what kind of embryo is it?

 

(also, it's nice to quote the person you're responding to so they are notified.  Your snarky one-liners tend to get lost amid the more substantial posts in this forum.)

[normiss 893]

18 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 

How does that follow what I said?  We've already determined that according to article 14, the unborn don't fit the definition of a citizen, but that has nothing to do with whether or not non-citizens have rights.

. . .and btw, if it's not a human embryo, what kind of embryo is it?

 

(also, it's nice to quote the person you're responding to so they are notified.  Your snarky one-liners tend to get lost amid the more substantial posts in this forum.)

I'm curious how you missed the quote function for so many years.

Most snarky one liners do, just like yours.

Who said embryo?

[Coreece 190]

27 minutes ago, normiss said:

47 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 

How does that follow what I said?  We've already determined that according to article 14, the unborn don't fit the definition of a citizen, but that has nothing to do with whether or not non-citizens have rights.

. . .and btw, if it's not a human embryo, what kind of embryo is it?

Who said embryo? 

Are you able to articulate the scientific term you were referring to when you said "blob" so we don't have to play this stupid game?

Given that a fetus typically has arms, legs and a head, I don't see how it could be considered a blob - but then again, some people have compared human progeny to cancerous tumors and even cake, so I guess I'll just add it to the list of dumb comparisons.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Coreece

[normiss 893]

56 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Are you able to articulate the scientific term you were referring to when you said "blob" so we don't have to play this stupid game?

Given that a fetus typically has arms, legs and a head, I don't see how it could be considered a blob - but then again, some people have compared human progeny to cancerous tumors and even cake, so I guess I'll just add it to the list of dumb comparisons.

Or you could understand the different stages of human gestation.

I assumed zygote or blastocyst  might be too challenging, so I went with blob.

It appears my assumption was fairly accurate.

[Coreece 190]

6 minutes ago, normiss said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Are you able to articulate the scientific term you were referring to when you said "blob" so we don't have to play this stupid game?

 

zygote or blastocyst

 

Ok, if it's not a human zygote/blastocyst, what kind of zygote/blastocyst is it?

...and you do realize that medical abortions don't typical occur during these stages, right?

[normiss 893]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Ok, if it's not a human zygote/blastocyst, what kind of zygote/blastocyst is it?

...and you do realize that medical abortions don't typical occur during these stages, right?

Now you move on to attacking me for not using the word fetus. Hmmm.

I was simply pointing out the waste of discussion over citizen's rights to a mass of tissue.

Ad nauseum.

[turtlespeed 226]

10 minutes ago, normiss said:

Now you move on to attacking me for not using the word fetus. Hmmm.

I was simply pointing out the waste of discussion over citizen's rights to a mass of tissue.

Ad nauseum.

So are we arguing over the zygote being a human zygote or a mass of cells?

Because - both are true, depending on how you want to feel good about your decision to end its existence.

[normiss 893]

It shouldn't surprise me how few men know anything about human reproduction and the terms used.

[wmw999 2,587]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Because - both are true, depending on how you want to feel good about your decision to end its existence.

The decision to interfere, recommend, and/or support can be a man’s. Only the woman can actually have an abortion. 

Too many men seem not to understand that. 

Wendy P. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Too many men seem not to understand that. 

Hi Wendy,

Well, this man does.  And has since his mid-teens; which was a long, long time ago.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As has been said many times:  If men could get pregnant, none of them would be against abortion.

[turtlespeed 226]

2 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

Well, this man does.  And has since his mid-teens; which was a long, long time ago.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As has been said many times:  If men could get pregnant, none of them would be against abortion.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you.

My beliefs on the matter do not extend into the right of having a choice - 

It's the pregnant woman's business.  If she wants to live with that - or can live with that decision, that is her burden.

Jerry - I know it is a catch phrase - I get it - Like "There are no atheists in the fox hole under fire."

I will agree that MOST men would be in favor of the right to choose, not all would.

I can't justify anymore, that I am so important that my views must be instilled on the public.

I don't see how anyone can.  Leave the right to choose alone.  Let people make their own choices - its their life - not yours.