The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
The Personhood Debates
Debate 4: Kill the Poor
Bill:
"The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law."
Tried:
SO are you willing to take in one of these babies, whether it has a severe deformity or not, for the rest of the childs life? Are you willing to support an unwed mother in order to raiase this child?
Bill:
Of course I am, but that is irrelevant. Do you believe that it is okay to kill a person just because he is poor or handicapped?
Tried:
NO I do not, I believe it is a woman's choice. You say that you are willing to help these women, then how many of them have you helped.
I also do not think the questions I asked are irrelevant. These women need help in raising these children. Raising children is not cheap and very demanding especially if they medical conditions. So I do not see how this is irrelative. You say that you are personally helping these women, how many have/are you helping with your time and financial assistance?
Bill:
Your question is irrelevant if the unborn child is a person, for if he is, then the killing of an unborn child who is poor or handicapped would be no different from killing a two year old child who is poor or handicapped. You say that you do not believe it to be okay to kill a person just because he is poor or handicapped. Therefore, unless you can demonstrate that the unborn child is not a person, then you must logically conclude that these two reasons do not represent valid reasons for killing an unborn child.
In my original post, I included a link to the free Personhood Booklet. If you would take a moment to read through that booklet, you would notice that I provide four separate lines of proof that the unborn child is actually a person from the moment that fertilization begins. He should, therefore, be granted the equal protection of the law which our Constitution states to be to all persons.
Tried:
I read your Personhood Booklet, most of it contains Bible versus and parts of Alabama law, which are all written by men.
But I see you still think it is irrelavant to answer the question are you willing to help these women with the raising of these babies. It is not irrelevant, especially since you have this personhood booklet but yet you have refused to answer my question.
Abortion decisions are made because there is something wrong with the fetus, mother's health and the fact that some women have no way to support these babies. I think if pro-lifers want to stop abortions, they need to find away to help these women to have another choice, either by helping to support these babies or find people who would raise them.
I see you have no problem with PR for the booklet but there are more problems then figuring out if the fetus should be considered a person or not. There are decisions that need to be made and the pro-lifers as usual ignore securing the future of these fetus'.
Bill:
The sections from the Bible and Alabama law constitute only about one-fourth of the total booklet. There are also sections proving my conclusion from case law as well as from scientific research, and there is a question and answer section at the end.
If the unborn child is a person as I have demonstrated, then questions about that persons quality of life are irrelevant to a discussion about whether that person should be killed. American law recognizes that every person has an inalienable right to life and states that no person may be deprived of life without a trial by a jury of his peers followed by an opportunity for appeal. The single relevant question in discussions on abortion is that of the personhood of the unborn child. If he is a person, then abortion cannot be permitted. If he is not, then it cannot be prohibited. Personhood is the only question that matters.
Tried:
And again you ignore the question.
And no the personhood is not the only question that matters. The other questions are just as important, but of course you only want to look at one side and don't want to answer that question. You would rather rule over women's bodies and then leave them. The issue is about male control over female bodies.
Bill:
Sure it is. If the unborn child is a person, then you have no more right to kill him than you have to kill a two year old. Are you saying that it would be okay to kill a two year old just because his mother cannot afford to raise him?
Tried:
Like how you still avoid the question, and then put the stupidest statement up. Lets face it you are not going to answer the question because as I said before you only want control over women and have no desire to help these women in anyway shape or form. So please quit with the stupid statements and changing the subject.
Bill:
If I recall, the subject that started this conversation was that of personhood for the unborn, and it was your question that was a shift from that topic. If you must have an answer to it, however, I'm more than willing to provide one. I believe you were wondering how many poor and destitute women I have assisted in regards to providing for their children. My answer is simply that I have not kept track. Helping those in need is a way of life to me. I do not keep a tally of what I have done or whom I have helped. I could probably name a few in particular, but the names would be meaningless to you and perhaps embarrassing to those so named. I have no desire to control people, and I find it humorous that you make such a claim without any knowledge of me beyond this single conversation. Now, if you don't mind, I am very curious as to whether you think that it would be okay to kill a two year old just because his mother cannot afford to raise him.
Tried:
I did answer your question, I said it was a stupid statement. No I do not believe in killing a two year old because his mother cannot afford to raise the child. Again the question was irrelavent to begin with considering we are talking about a fetus. You also said that I have no knowledge of you and am making assumptions that you want to control women, but I think the pamplet you push speaks for you and where your beliefs are which in my opinion is that you wish to control women and take away their control/choice over their bodies.
Bill:
The point that I prove in the booklet is that the unborn child is just as much a person as the two year old. Therefore, he is entitled to the equal protection of the law and cannot rightfully be killed without due process. Can you prove that the unborn is not a person?
Tried:
Can I prove the unborn is a not a person? No more than you can prove it is.
Bill:
I have provided 16 pages of proof from four different perspectives. You have yet to discredit a single point that I have made.
Tried:
So because you wrote a pamplet made up of the bible, written by men, laws, created by men, and case law, that was decided by men, that you are right. Well I guess if men say it is true therefore it is true. Again trying to control women and their choices.
Bill:
Are our prohibitions against murder and theft attempts to control people and their choices?