Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[Jon Miller]

Brainwaves isn't exactly a proof of personality - that can be measured on any mammal child. Developing a personality for a human child takes at least a year or two - until that, it's pure instinct.

That is the social argument, which is a very fringe position.

Note that we consider it murder to kill those in comas. It is a matter of argument about those who don't even have brain waves!

JM

[Nikolai]

Gays killed by hate crimes committed by Christians this year: dozens
Christian activists killed: 1

The Christians are winning.

Not read much of this thread yet, and not sure I want to from the first posts. I've come down to Asher's post above, and if I understand right, Ben thinks a man killed as a martyr(I'm not sure I'd call him that) is a good thing. I don't agree totally. Granted, people suffering for their beliefs is a efficient catalyst for making Christianity grow, history shows that. But human suffering is never good. The Bible should give you a fair hint on that Ben.

As for Asher's post above: I'd claim that a person who kills people, is not a real Christian.

[Wezil]

As for Asher's post above: I'd claim that a person who kills people, is not a real Christian.

Do you stop being a christian if you commit a big sin?

[Ben Kenobi]

Contrary to your unsupported belief that the Court will start stripping "person" status from people if the fetus isn't considered a person, the Court has since ruled against assisted suicide. Shouldn't they have gone the other way?

All I am arguing is that your argument is the same principle in arguing that some people are not fully persons.

Now, I have a question for you. When did our supreme court rule that unborn children are not persons? Can you cite the law?

[Ben Kenobi]

But human suffering is never good. The Bible should give you a fair hint on that Ben.

I think it's good that he's in heaven, bad that he was shot. I'd rather he died in his bed many years from now, but sadly that wasn't the case.

[Wezil]

All I am arguing is that your argument is the same principle in arguing that some people are not fully persons.

No. fetus /= person. That is the whole point.

Now, I have a question for you. When did our supreme court rule that unborn children are not persons? Can you cite the law?

The decision. Yes.

Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daigle_v._Tremblay

[Wezil]

For someone that cares so much about this issue you are very poorly informed.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. fetus /= person. That is the whole point.

And in the Dred Scott decision they stated that a black man /= person. Dred scott was wrong, and so is Daigle.

[Wezil]

We're talking about abortions Ben. Abortions. Focus.

edit - Cite the abortion law that provided the slippery slope for Dred Scott. Otherwise, leave off.

[BlackCat]

That is the social argument, which is a very fringe position.

Note that we consider it murder to kill those in comas. It is a matter of argument about those who don't even have brain waves!

JM

To be honest, it was a bit of a tease. Children doesn't have a personality at birth, that takes a couple of years to develop. Though, neither does a fetus have a such, since it demands a birth (and a couple of years) to develop such.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wezil, wiki is not a source! Goddamn it.

http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii33/1989canlii33.html

A foetus is not included within the term "human being" in the Quebec Charter and, therefore, does not enjoy the right to life conferred by s. 1. The Quebec Charter, considered as a whole, does not display any clear intention on the part of its framers to consider the status of a foetus. It is framed in very general terms and makes no reference to the foetus or foetal rights, nor does it include any definition of the term "human being" or "person". This lack of an intention to deal with a foetus's status is, in itself, a strong reason for not finding foetal rights under the Quebec Charter. If the legislature had wished to accord a foetus the right to life, it is unlikely that it would have left the protection of this right in such an uncertain state. As this case demonstrates, a foetus' alleged right to life will be protected only at the discretionary request of third parties.

This is an argument from silence. They concede that the Quebec Charter says nothing about the rights of the unborn, ergo, the unborn ought to have no rights.

Again,

The provisions of the Code providing for the appointment of a curator for an unborn child and the provisions granting patrimonial interests to such child do not implicitly recognize that a foetus is a juridical person

Which is interesting, because they argue that the unborn do have some rights. Now, here is my point. All of these inheritance rights are worthless without the right to life. The right to life is fundamental to the exercise of all the other rights.

The Canadian Charter cannot be invoked in this case to support the injunction. This is a civil action between two private parties and there is no state action which is being impugned. The respondent pointed to no "law" of any sort which he can claim is infringing his rights or anyone else's rights. The issue as to whether s. 7 of the Canadian Charter could be used to ground an affirmative claim to protection by the state was not raised. This Court should generally avoid making any unnecessary constitutional pronouncement.

Again, this is the true ruling. There is no law here in Canada, the law is silent.

Please do not use wikipedia when the source document is available. Wikipedia is crap.

[Wezil]

Oh christ Ben. You're so full of **** you are choking on it.

I'm not going to the Benaverse tonight. I haven't the patience for it.

[Nikolai]

Do you stop being a christian if you commit a big sin?

There is no such thing as a big sin. But murdering a person does not some from the clear sky, no person who has let Christ form his person, would murder someone. But it's true that any sin can be forgiven if the person in question repents. And then I mean repents truly, in his heart.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to the Benaverse tonight. I haven't the patience for it.

You have the link to the source right there. Why not quote the actual source? Mindnumbing.

[Wezil]

Nikolai - I'm not a christian so I'm in no position to know but I have heard the phrase "We are all sinners" more than once. I was just wondering if there was a hierarchy whereby some sins would get you kicked out of the club.