- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history. Lets assume that terrorists have abused the Islamic symbol that represents their religion which is also ancient by bombing down towers and buildings ending in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness? While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion. The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.
And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word. I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all. If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.
To begin with, a mother cannot be charged even if she performs an abortion on herself. Various means of abortion includes using abortion pills and morning after pills which would require the mother to ingest the pill so yes through this process she is performing it on herself. No where in the laws define this as a crime.
Would you agree that murder is the intentional and unjustifiable taking of one human life by another?
And if consent is not given then it becomes murder. Isn't that why this statute was created?
Lastly, I fail to see your argument because if lets assume that the fetus was a child, this clause was passed so that it may be applied to situations in which consent of the mother was not given. That is, if the life of the fetus is taken at any stage by another person without the consent of the mother. It does not address the issue of whether or not the fetus is a person. It only addresses the issue of scenarios where consent of the mother is not given. This clause addresses consent, not the question of personhood.
Yet again, you fail to realize the core of my arguments. CONSENT WAS NEVER GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO TAKE THE LIFE OF THE FETUS SO HENCE THE ACT ITSELF IS A CRIME BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTHER HAS THAT RIGHT. Secondly, those articles failed to mention what stages the fetus were at the time of their deaths.
Again, I fail to see a substantive argument. Only the mother has the right to terminate the life of her fetus. No one else has that right so you actually did me the favor of proving my previous arguments. In all those cases you mention, the life of the fetus was taken A) during the commission of a homicide to the mother and B) without the consent of the mother outside the scope of abortion.
Lastly, what legal definition are you referring to? Because if that was the case then abortion would be a crime and it is not.
I assume those laws you refer to are relevant to cases of double homicides where both the fetus and the mother is killed. This is a different situation because consent was never taken from the mother to engage in such action. You fail to grasp my point. My argument was not that the fetal stage is not entitled to rights but rather that there is certain period during which rights are entitled. Even the U.S Supreme Court has argued, using medical facts that the fetus is not a person unless it reaches a certain point. Science would describe the fetus as a mass of cells undergoing development but which has not attained the stage of personhood.