When Does Life Begin ...

"but most Germans weren't entirely aware of what was going on, and would probably have been sickened if they did."

I'd say that probably the numbers of Germans who were aware of what was going on in the "camps" is in line with the numbers of Americans who know of the 40,000,000 abortions performed since Roe vs Wade.

There would be more awareness among Americans, but like in Nazi Germany, our press won't publish pictures of our Holocaust.

Vi

Vi - most Americans may not know the exact numbers associated with abortion, but they know it happens and probably are at least somewhat familiar with the procedure. And most aborted fetuses are really tiny and not even recognizable as human. You're probably referring to those late term abortions that are very rare and only done in extenuating circumstances. And actually I thought they were banned right now in the US.

Vi and ccodiane - The typical position of the courts is that democracy rules except in the case where a majority is imposing harsh laws that don't effect themselves on a minority. This is why the Jim Crow laws were outlawed, and this is why abortion was made legal by the supreme court. Most people will never have to even consider abortion, probably 90% of us. But to say, a teenage girl who was raped by her stepfather and is now pregnant, those laws can be crucial.

Doctor Pot said:

Vi - most Americans may not know the exact numbers associated with abortion, but they know it happens and probably are at least somewhat familiar with the procedure. And most aborted fetuses are really tiny and not even recognizable as human. You're probably referring to those late term abortions that are very rare and only done in extenuating circumstances. And actually I thought they were banned right now in the US.

Vi and ccodiane - The typical position of the courts is that democracy rules except in the case where a majority is imposing harsh laws that don't effect themselves on a minority. This is why the Jim Crow laws were outlawed, and this is why abortion was made legal by the supreme court. Most people will never have to even consider abortion, probably 90% of us. But to say, a teenage girl who was raped by her stepfather and is now pregnant, those laws can be crucial.

Click to expand...

What about the death penalty, carried out, for someone later exonerated by the courts? And yet they stand, these state laws allowing capital punishment?

No system is perfect, but the appropriate remedy for any number of social quandaries is rarely singular. Best to let the states decide based on the sentiment of their constituents. IMO.

I disagree with capital punishment for that reason. The notion that the value of "revenge" somehow outweighs the value of a potentially innocent person's life is ridiculous. A lot of "tough on crime" legislation could fall under the same category. And us pot smokers could arguably fall into the same category.

Doctor Pot said:

I disagree with capital punishment for that reason. The notion that the value of "revenge" somehow outweighs the value of a potentially innocent person's life is ridiculous. A lot of "tough on crime" legislation could fall under the same category. And us pot smokers could arguably fall into the same category.

Click to expand...

As well we should, if the courts declare it so. If even one innocent is inconvenienced by the thoughtless acts of thoughtless stoners, say a helpless family of innocents, stuck behind a VW bus full of stoned hippies in a taco bell drive through, 5 minutes before closing, we, as barely conscious stoners, deserve whatever the courts throw our way. As the majority of 9 say, is as it should be.

ccodiane said:

As well we should, if the courts declare it so. If even one innocent is inconvenienced by the thoughtless acts of thoughtless stoners, say a helpless family of innocents, stuck behind a VW bus full of stoned hippies in a taco bell drive through, 5 minutes before closing, we, as barely conscious stoners, deserve whatever the courts throw our way. As the majority of 9 say, is as it should be.

Click to expand...

I'm having difficulty gauging the level of sarcasm here.

My point was that even if the majority of people think MJ should be illegal, that doesn't mean that it should be illegal. After all, the majority of people don't smoke weed. Therefore, this may be a case of a majority of people imposing harsh laws that don't affect themselves on a minority. It's not a very strong argument, but anyway, that's irrelevant.

Doctor Pot said:

I'm having difficulty gauging the level of sarcasm here.

My point was that even if the majority of people think MJ should be illegal, that doesn't mean that it should be illegal. After all, the majority of people don't smoke weed. Therefore, this may be a case of a majority of people imposing harsh laws that don't affect themselves on a minority. It's not a very strong argument, but anyway, that's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It was a 7, out of 10....(sarcasm)

Here is where our fundamental difference lies.

The original question posed by Vi, "When does life begin?", is the question. The answer to that question will be as varied as the people answering the question. The more people answering the question, or, the more people that have their voices heard on the subject, the better, IMO.

We are beyond that, though, you and I. For many, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are irrelevant labels. I'm both, as are you, it would seem. For us the question, "When does life begin?" concerns not the fetus, but the Constitution. I say never. The guidelines laid out by the framers were not meant to be interpreted based on a notion of natural evolution, ie, a living document. The Supreme Court has it's role, and Legislature isn't one of them. We makes the laws. Power to the People!

Roe v. Wade

The supreme court did not presume to be able to state when life begins, you know. IIRC, their line of reasoning was that according to the constitution, in order for states to pass laws that limit people's freedoms, they have to have a compelling reason to do so. Since the supreme court could not think of any reasons why a state would benefit from making abortion illegal, they decided that it was unconstitutional. It's more complicated than that, but I think that's the essence of it.

Doctor Pot said:

The supreme court did not presume to be able to state when life begins, you know.

Click to expand...

The majority did employ that argument actually. You know?

Roe v. Wade

Doctor Pot said:

IIRC, their line of reasoning was that according to the constitution, in order for states to pass laws that limit people's freedoms, they have to have a compelling reason to do so. Since the supreme court could not think of any reasons why a state would benefit from making abortion illegal, they decided that it was unconstitutional. It's more complicated than that, but I think that's the essence of it.

Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with the Constitution, other than blatant disregard for the RRepublic aspect of our being. It had to due with interpretation of the 14th's due process clause.

[SIZE=+1]Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [/SIZE]

Roe v. Wade

Amendments are part of the constitution. And I'm not saying I agree 100% with their decision, I'm just saying I can understand it. Since you posted that same link three times, I'm assuming you read the whole thing, right? I had to for an American history class, although that was kind of a long time ago.

Doctor Pot said:

Amendments are part of the constitution. And I'm not saying I agree 100% with their decision, I'm just saying I can understand it. Since you posted that same link three times, I'm assuming you read the whole thing, right? I had to for an American history class, although that was kind of a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Amendments are amendments.

Yeah, I read all three opinions, recently.

What was the majority sentiment in your class? The teachers position? And don't say you don't know. You do.

PS- Do you believe in a "living Constitution"?

ccodiane said:

What was the majority sentiment in your class? The teachers position? And don't say you don't know. You do.

PS- Do you believe in a "living Constitution"?

Click to expand...

The teacher didn't interject her own opinion, although judging from the way she acted I'm pretty sure she was pro-choice. There were a few outspoken critics on either side of the debate, but the majority didn't say much. We only spent a day or two on it.

The Constitution is a lot of things. It provides a lot of specifics, and a lot of generalities. But I am not of the opinion that there is any special sacredness or infallibility to it. The Roe v. Wade decision was a stretch, I'll give you that.

Still, amendments are part of the Constitution, in every sense. Do you think that the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution?

The constitution does need to be reinterpreted, and in that sense it is a "living document". For instance, the constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Should this apply to say, movies, video games, and web pages? The framers couldn't tell you, which is why the courts have to decide things like that. The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms. However, as weapons became increasingly powerful, the courts have had to put limits on what can be owned by civilians. Satchel charges are out, for instance. The courts do indeed have to decide how the constitution applies to the world as it changes. In fact, that is part of their job as defined by the constitution.

Doctor Pot said:

The teacher didn't interject her own opinion, although judging from the way she acted I'm pretty sure she was pro-choice. There were a few outspoken critics on either side of the debate, but the majority didn't say much. We only spent a day or two on it.

The Constitution is a lot of things. It provides a lot of specifics, and a lot of generalities. But I am not of the opinion that there is any special sacredness or infallibility to it. The Roe v. Wade decision was a stretch, I'll give you that.

Still, amendments are part of the Constitution, in every sense. Do you think that the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution?

The constitution does need to be reinterpreted, and in that sense it is a "living document". For instance, the constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Should this apply to say, movies, video games, and web pages? The framers couldn't tell you, which is why the courts have to decide things like that. The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms. However, as weapons became increasingly powerful, the courts have had to put limits on what can be owned by civilians. Satchel charges are out, for instance. The courts do indeed have to decide how the constitution applies to the world as it changes. In fact, that is part of their job as defined by the constitution.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

This is in the Constitution.

LII: Constitution

"arising under this Constitution"

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

So what's your point?

Doctor Pot said:

So what's your point?

Click to expand...

You'll know it when you figure it out. Or you won't when you don't. Happy hunting.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

"Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love
He said don't worry about a thing baby doll I'm the man you've been dreamin' of
But three months later he said he won't date her or return her call
And she sweared god damn if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin' through the doors
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore"

- Everlast

chuckbane said:

"Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love
He said don't worry about a thing baby doll I'm the man you've been dreamin' of
But three months later he said he won't date her or return her call
And she sweared god damn if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin' through the doors
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore"

- Everlast

Click to expand...

Good song

every time i guy wacks his shit off he should think about the potential life he is killing.
kidding this thread is heavy wanted to lighten a bit

LMAO! I think cc resigned from this site after Obama got elected