Fighting and upholding rights, anyone's rights it good and noble and honest, something you have been lacking a bit. Freedom is appealing, although not everyone's freedom is always appealing to everyone else.
With such great results. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html What idiocy. Is the dependent status of children hinging on any arguments? Oh yes of course it is, they have to be born.
The two of you could not illustrate any legal concept if your lives depended on it and there is ample evidence of that in your posts.
The heavily edited and cherry picked video you posted very clearly alludes to the Justices talking about the fetus at any stage of development, which when one reads the actually transcript it is obvious to all, except those who cannot read, that it does not. The video states that Chief Justice Warren E. Burger asked the question "Could Texas constitutionally, in your view, declare thatby statute that the fetus is a person for all constitutional purposes" and omits the rest of the question - "after the third month of gestation", this omission changes the context of the question, it is dishonest and misrepresentation. It makes the question appear to be asking about the fetus no matter at what point it is in gestation age. when you add the response from Ms Weddington it makes it appear as if she is agreeing with the edited question, when in reality she is agreeing with the full question concerning rights after the third month of gestation Further more it quotes a response from Ms Weddington and again is edited to not include the evidence of precedence from other cases, which again changes the context. so either you are truly ignorant to how the English language works or are being wilfully ignorant of the obvious.
1. I don't deny that the tape was edited. 2. The reason I don't see it as misleading in any way is that the edits do not say anything that the original transcripts do not also say. For example, you're correct that the judge added context in his question to Sarah Weddington, when he specified " three months" gestation. However, any rational person (lawyer or politician) can see that it was an arbitrarily decided point by the judge. The judge could have logically followed his first question by saying "what about Two months gestation?" What about One? Etc. Ms. Weddington's response (by acknowledging the States COULD do as the Justice suggested and pass laws in that effect...) was what the Justice wanted to hear. He had no logical reason or need to press her any further for that point to be made. Also, let assume that your point was that the Justice was never willing to go LESS than three months gestation. 3. Comments and questions made during oral arguments are not legally binding on future legislation. The UVVA, it's definitions and laguage proves that. Doesn't it? If the Justices of the SCOTUS would never allow a State (or the Federal Government) to "establish the personhood of the child" prior to "three months gestation"... Why have they allowed the language and definitions under the UVVA to remain unchallenged?
and this has relevance to you posting a clip alluding to support your position how? this is about your obvious attempt to post a misleading item nothing else.
That is a LIE. It is the ONLY argument you present. ONLY for the purposes of that law and NOT as a universal definition or for ANY OTHER purpose. Yes that is the law and it is entirely irrelevant to this issue. It is not a child, that is just another of your lies. It is a "child in utero" and if ti was a CHILD there would be no need to qualify it as "in utero" since it is illegal already to harm children. You have yet to offer ANY argument to support that misrepresentation and I do not mean twisted dictionary definition, another of your usual misrepresentations. And your appeal to authority fallacy. That is true and entirely irrelevant to the issue. But it is an appeal to authority when it is the only argument you make and of course the entire thing is still irrelevant. Because they are not arguments and are totally devoid of any rational or intelligent reasoning. No need to as it is totally irrelevant to abortion.
That is just hilarious. Of course they do not say anything the transcripts do not. THAT is the whole point the omit important sections in an attempt to mislead or misrepresent, the tactic, the ONLY tactic used by you. BS. The fact that the Court held that the states may regulate abortion to protect their interests makes it clear that the first trimester is entirely out of the question for consideration. But they constitute the basis of the decision. It proves NOTHING relevant.
You are dodging the points I made in my explanation, Fugazi. There is no attempt to mislead... and certainly the language and definitions of UVVA stands in spite of the points that you think the "edited" video missed. Doesn't it. So, you are railing against a video that isn't even all that relevant anymore. If you thought the Justice's comments in the oral arguments in Roe could keep a State or the Federal Government from establishng the personhood of children prior to three weeks gestation? You would have been wrong. Correct? So, your outrage over the editing of the video (as it relates to that context) is unfounded.
If it isn't relevant any more, why have you posted it on more than one occasion and stated that it "shows" that the UVVA could be used against Roe because of the questions and answers contained within it? so instead of asking me why I am "attempting" to "dodge" your questions (an obvious attempt by you to side-track) why don't you explain why you are using un-relevant information that is obviously misleading in order to support your opinion.
Because it is part of the time line. Sequence of events. It helps to show where we are headed with regard to the rights of prenatal children and why. Explained above. (Your sniping criticizms not withstanding)
LOL, if you weren't attempting to be serious this would be so funny ... so an item posted by you that is clearly a heavily edited and cherry picked, which when examined against the actual oral arguments is shown to be nothing more than a piece of propaganda, which you yourself have said isn't relevant .. suddenly becomes relevant as part of the "sequence of events", even though your erroneous video isn't actually a true rendition of the "sequence of events". further more, as pointed out by prometeus the fact that Roe imposes NO restrictions in the first 3 months clearly shows that the omitted part of the question is very relevant. Your squirming not withstanding.
Just wanted to remind everyone of what you said concerning this piece of edited propaganda, and how you have attempted to squirm your way out of it.
Your characterization is not my reality. The video was edited - that doesn't make it misleading. I said (only because we are now already past that point legally - with the UVVA) that it's not very relevant. And, if the video were to fall off the planet.... what would it change? Nothing. Right? I disagree. Else, Planned Parenthood would have tried to use that to prevent the UVVA from going forward. They failed to do that.
You call it propaganda.... but it was the very path taken to get the UVVA and it (the concept - not the video) puts us on a direct path to challenge Roe. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, signed into law by President George Bush in 2004, characterizes the murder of a pregnant woman as the murder of two persons, with specific protections for mothers and abortion providers. Still abortion opponents claim this as federal recognition of a fetus as a “person” and abortion proponents claiming that the law is in conflict with the Roe v Wade ruling and a possible first step to illegalizing abortion." ~http://family.laws.com/abortion-law
What have I denied ? I do understand the difference and made that difference clear in the last post. What you do not seem to understand is that you have not made a valid argument in support of your claim. You whine and cry and deny and try to wiggle around on semantics. Argue what fact ? The fact that you have not made a valid argument ?
and your reality is pure fantasy when something is omitted that is relevant, in order to make it seem to say something else .. that is misleading. so the question remains, if it is not "very" relevant what is the purpose of posting it, unless it is to mislead people into believing that the UVVA does exactly what you say it does. For you a lot, as you wouldn't have a misleading item to post as fact. They had no need, as has already been explained the UVVA does not conflict with Roe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services
Circular. The personhood of slaves wasn't merely denied. It was a matter of law, being part of the Constitution. As a matter of law, as applied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court > your opinion. You apparently have a very different idea of what constitutes equal rights. ...because that's your ideology. No one tells me what to think, and certainly not just because I have a same-sex orientation.
Circular. Have you ever read the Supreme Court's Dred Scott Decision? "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution...." The 5th Amendment says: " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Explain to me how the slaves were being Constitutionally recognized as "persons" by the Supreme Court - in the Dred Scott case.
Fugazi - Can a State establish personhood for children in the womb prior to three weeks gestation? Yes or no? (Before you answer - you should consider the fact that the UVVA already does so) So, if your answer is YES... how then, is the video misleading? Scroll back. I already explained that. The video gave a clue to the States (and even to the Congress) on how they could establish the 'personhood' of children in the womb. You seem to think they were limitied to the gestational period used in the Justices question. But we know that wasn't the case - as we have the UVVA - which sets it at conception - and the UVVA has been upheld by the Supreme Court. So, if anyone was mislead.... it's you. If anyone is being milsleading (by trying to say it's limited - in spite of the UVVA....)? It's you. I'm glad you think so.
Do you deny the fact that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is "a human being?" Yes or no? In your opinion.... I understand that is your perception. However, from my POV.... you are projecting and it all eminates from your answer to the question above. I've asked for the Admins and Mods help on trying to resolve our disagreement on that. I'm anxious to see if anything more can be done.
No, fact. I suppose I could waste my time doing that, but I hope no one observing this discussion is stupid enough to fall for your dodge. Are you seriously trying to claim that the Dred Scott decision somehow overrides the "three fifths" clause of the Constitution? Really? The three fifths clause didn't afford slaves any rights; it merely defined their 'personhood' as a tool for apportionment. The Dred Scott decision doesn't change that. The clause remained effective until the 13th amendment rendered it moot, and the 14th repealed it. And that's all this move to define the 'personhood' of a fetus is as well - a tool to be used by those who seek to strip away privacy and give a fetus 'rights' superior to those of actual people.
