abortion

Originally posted by Halitose
Have it your way. Its just disingenuous. I won't start debating the merits as I know you will wrangle your way through a keyhole if you could - its a lawyer thing, I know, my sister is one.

Humans have been capable of it before - have you read up on some of the atrocities exposed during the Nuremburg trials.

1st paragraph: Ad Hominem without an insult. Ivanhoe please study this carefully as you think the two terms mean the same thing.

Humans are capable of a lot. A society like Nazi Germany which does not believe in the Self-Autonomy of the individual is a dangerous one. The position that the government should make a murderer out of a woman for exercising her right to control her own body is one worthy of a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany. I could come up with my own "slippery slope" arguments based on your unwillingness to respect a woman's personal autonomy and lead it to the Holocaust. If the 20th Century showed us anything, it was that governments should have limited powers over individual freedom. You are asserting a very broad power to be asserted by some people over a very basic right of others and that, my friend, leads logically to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Analogies can't be "false". Please don't get me started on THAT again. They can be useful or not. My analogy is useful as it takes the logical predicates of your claim i.e. zygotes are being killed, therefore soon mentally insane people will be killed and puts one of your things in the same relationship to another since a zygote is a living thing as ...[text shortened]... le than yours. Therefore, soon if Nemesio and LJ get their way we'll be eating the handicapped.

Talk about the wheelchair being the only part of a vegetable we can't eat.

If I weren't so repulsed by the idea of cannibalism I don't see why not, it follows logically; maybe some culture can introduce us to fetus-burgers (they will just have to name it something more appetizing for the marketing). We eat baby squids and unhatched chickens (not eggs); you are a genius No1, now we have something to do with the tons of tissue being dumped in the trash and peddled in the organ trade from all the abortions. Current figures are at 50 million annual abortions world-wide, what a waste.

Originally posted by no1marauder
1st paragraph: Ad Hominem without an insult. Ivanhoe please study this carefully as you think the two terms mean the same thing.

Humans are capable of a lot. A society like Nazi Germany which does not believe in the Self-Autonomy of the individual is a dangerous one. The position that the government should make a murderer out of a woman for exe ...[text shortened]... ic right of others and that, my friend, leads logically to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the rest.

You've got me convinced. I'll be formulting my arguments on "why the rights of women should end at the taking of human life" over the next couple days. I'll then attempt to answer your page 4 position.

Originally posted by Halitose
For now. But it does not detract in any way from my previous statements. With our politically-correct-to-the-point-of-following-the-most-liberal-ideas-except-when-it-comes-to-condemning-Bobby-Mugabe * government, you can never be sure...

If legislation permitting infanticide & abortion were introduced and challenged, the constitutional court would have the final say.

I didn't follow the euthanasia story--how was it quashed?

Originally posted by Halitose
We eat baby squids and unhatched chickens (not eggs); you are a genius No1, now we have something to do with the tons of tissue being dumped in the trash and peddled in the organ trade from all the abortions. Current figures are at 50 million annual abortions world-wide, what a waste.

Read telerion's Debates thread on the free market and abortion, it's a hoot.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
BBC report: "Dutch doctors have reported 22 mercy killings of terminally ill babies since 1997, according to a new study.
None of the doctors involved were charged, although euthanasia for children is illegal in the Netherlands.

The report, in the Dutch Journal of Medicine, is the first detailed examination of child euthanasia.

The study's author ...[text shortened]... the last sentence. The BBC report isn't very accurate. Spina bifida isn't a terminal disease.

Speaking of accuracy, here's CNN report from March 2005:

Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital's pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious "(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death."

"They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada."

That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings.

Because the procedure was not legal, Verhagen said, the hospital preferred that cases be assessed by a committee of experts. The Dutch parliament legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002.

"What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight," the doctor said.

Eric Van Yijlick, project manager for SCEN (Support and Consultation on Euthanasia in the Netherlands), said the Groningen cases involving newborns should be referred to as "life ending without request" rather than euthanasia, because that term indicates the dying party has requested the procedure.

Van Yijlick said that to his knowledge, the killing of newborns is not common -- just a few cases yearly. No official statistics exist on terminally ill children's lives being terminated, he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/index.html

The language is clear: incurable, terminal cases: extreme cases of spina bifida with uncovered brains and/or spinal cords and extreme suffering. And it is very rare. Where are all these 12 year olds being slaughtered, Ivanhoe?

Originally posted by no1marauder
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

A logically equivalent argument:

Once you allow people to eat hamburgers made from living things, soon they'll be eating mentally insane human beings. A precedent has been set that you can eat living things so morally, ethically and logically a baby down the street is fair game to be put in a bun with pickles just like a cow.

Marauder, stop denying the actual developments and stop your ridiculous "chicken little" story. It is becoming annoying. It has nothing to do with presenting an argument based on actual developments.

Denying has been and will be an integral part of the strategies of the advocates of these unwanted developments. First they deny that these developments will eventually take place ("There isn't such a thing as a "Slippery Slope ! ", "We are no Nazi's !" ). Then, when reports are being published with the message it is indeed happening they fanatically deny the reports (Accusations of being a "Chicken Little" are spouted around) and if they cannot possibly deny it anymore, they simply state that all these reports are all very exaggerated. Next thing they do is demand that the law will be adjusted to the "new developments".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If legislation permitting infanticide & abortion were introduced and challenged, the constitutional court would have the final say.

I didn't follow the euthanasia story--how was it quashed?

Nope. The latest abortion amendments (about 5-6 months ago) were passed through parliament, no constitutional court involvement.

Euthanasia story - I'll see if I can find a link, it was stopped in one of our lower courts - no appeals as of yet.

Originally posted by Halitose
You've got me convinced. I'll be formulting my arguments on "why the rights of women should end at the taking of human life" over the next couple days. I'll then attempt to answer your page 4 position.

Perhaps you should formulate it as why a "Woman's right to self-autonomy over the things in her body ceases at the instant of conception".

Originally posted by Halitose
Nope. The latest abortion amendments (about 5-6 months ago) were passed through parliament, no constitutional court involvement.

They're amendments to legislation--of course they were passed through parliament! But if they are challenged, the ultimate authority as to whether they are constitutional or not is the CC. So if the government decided that killing the mentally ill is henceforth de rigueur, objectors would have to recourse to the constitutional court. That's how the systems works, broadly speaking.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They're amendments to legislation--of course they were passed through parliament! But if they are challenged, the ultimate authority as to whether they are constitutional or not is the CC. So if the government decided that killing the mentally ill is henceforth de rigueur, objectors would have to recourse to the constitutional court. That's how the systems works, broadly speaking.

Yes. You are right... but who appoints the CC judges?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Marauder, stop denying the actual developments and stop your ridiculous "chicken little" story. It is becoming annoying. It has nothing to do with presenting an argument based on actual developments.

Denying has been and will be an integral part of the strategies of the advocates of these unwanted developments. First they deny that these developments wi ...[text shortened]... gerated. Next thing they do is demand that the law will be adjusted to the "new developments".

Please stick with what is actually happening rather than your absurd exaggerations, Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you should formulate it as why a "Woman's right to self-autonomy over the things in her body ceases at the instant of conception".

I'll try and remain politically-correct in my rebuttal. 😉

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes. You are right... but who appoints the CC judges?

(3) The President as head of the national executive, after consulting the Judicial Service Commission and the leaders of parties represented in the National Assembly, appoints the President and Deputy President of the Constitutional Court and, after consulting the Judicial Service Commission, appoints the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice.

(4) The other judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed by the President, as head of the national executive, after consulting the President of the Constitutional Court and the leaders of parties represented in the National Assembly, in accordance with the following procedure:

The Judicial Service Commission must prepare a list of nominees with three names more than the number of appointments to be made, and submit the list to the President.
The President may make appointments from the list, and must advise the Judicial Service Commission, with reasons, if any of the nominees are unacceptable and any appointment remains to be made.
The Judicial Service Commission must supplement the list with further nominees and the President must make the remaining appointments from the supplemented list.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'll try and remain politically-correct in my rebuttal. 😉

I've made a thread for you in debates.