Since we all have to live together it is very relevant.
It is irrelevant because it is relative, and hence subject to a contractbetween Individuals.
They can try, if they so CHOOSE.
Would that be right or wrong ?
Â
No, we need to continue with them because they are basis rules that allow us to live together.
Basic rules ?
Is "Thou shalt notkill" a basic rule that allow us to live together ?
We kill animals for food.
We kill(execute) prisoners.
We kill soldiers and civilians in "collateral damage".
We kill Native Americans with Small Pox blankets.
We kill Japanese with nukes.
How can we liveif we didn'tkill ?
No, she would still have a choice
Of course she would.
Just like the choice youwould have if there is a capital punishment for eating.
They had a choice. Many people availed themselves of it.
Yes.
But notlegally.
People made millions in bootlegging and smuggling during Prohibition.
Motivated Quacks would make millions smuggling RU-486 or operating makeshift D&C chambers in basements in this day and age.
You are free from unreasonable searches and seizures
That includesfreedom from search and seizure of what one does privately with one's genitals or another consenting adult in the bedroom, in the sauna, on the dining table, on the kitchen sink, in the BDSM setup in the basement, or in the backseat of one's car ( out of public sight ).
And THAT, dear, is a right to privacy.
For example, adultery was condemned in 1776, but it certainly could make some people happy.Â
It isa matter of freedom of choice.
What one does with a partner in private sexual interaction should be no concernof the Law, if both are of age, AND consenting.
The Constitution can be amended through the proper procedures.
Most certainly.
And if the renegotiated instrument is not satisfactory enough, there are democratic ( and, failing which, undemocratic ) procedures like Secessions, Coups and Revolutions to overthrow that Contractas well.
Â
People do it all the time in order to live in society.
They negotiatea contract which is binding on ALLpeople.
In this case, the obligation is binding on the WOMAN alone.
That makes the option invalid and discriminatory, and curtailing the freedom of women alone.
So, no soup.
There is always a choice. Making it illegal will just provide another factor to be considered.
There is a subtstantial difference between freedomof choice, and choice at gunpoint.
You don'thave a choice if oneof the alternatives trampleson your Liberty by implied threat of force.
What about the first amendment? Is it okay to advertise gentleman's clubs?
Sure, as long as they aren't driving down the highway with poster size pictures of naked women playing with their nipples and spreading their legs for the little kids.
one of the very first things that happens to many children is they get a woman's nipple shoved right in their face....shortly after they emerge from between her legs.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Â— The ACLU and Planned Parenthood sued Monday to block a Florida ballot measure that would pave the way for a law requiring parents to be told when their minor daughters seek abortions.
Demon: the USSC is there to protect the people from the will of a tyrannical majority No it isn't. Nowhere does the Constitution say that that is the job of the USSC. Their real job is to uphold the Constitution as written. If you weren't such a dumbass, you'd know that.
Demon, you prove your ignorance with every post. You have no support for your position so just give up. Go back to school and learn something and maybe you can be a productive member of society.
You attempt to perpetuate the lie that my objection to abortion is the Bible. You can lie to yourself but I pointed out numerous times it was all based on logic.
but who is the patient receiving care? very very very seldom is it actually the fetus.
Yes but they can and do.
why is it ok to remove a malignant tumor? genetically, it is different from the person suffering from cancer. yet we are actively working on ways to eliminate it? by many arguments from the anti-abortion crowd here, that the fetus has a different set of dna from the mother, that cancer would also be a different being by virtue of its different dna. what gives?
Sorry Ares I can't make the leap from tumor to child. If you can look at the pics I posted and equate the two so be it. I've never seen a tumor yawn or suck it's thumb. When the tumor can survive out of the womb and then grow into a person I'll consider it. I'm done with this topic for a while because I can't understand how someone could even equate the two, that's why I rarely post in here because of the justification and rationalization used to equate a baby to a friggen tumor. Sorry I just don't accept it.
That's why I usually stay away from this topic. I can be swayed or even walk away seeing the other person's point of view on most topics. Not this one, if 9 months of inconvienece is too much to ask of someone who willingly had sex then I think it's the most callous, selfish and cruel thing to suck a helpless child out of a womb and kill it. As long as it hasn't left the vagina it's o.k to cut it apart limb by limb. Look at some pics of an abortion, look at the pics I posted and tell me it's a zygote. Sorry I just can't and no amount of discussion will ever change my mind on that so it's better I just stay away from the topic as I have done in the past and agree to disagree.
Only an idiot, like you ares, would believe that. Sperm cells and ovum cells, have DNA of the man or the woman. When the combine you have a different object with distinct DNA from the parents.
wrong. the individual sperm and ova cells contain halfof the dna of the person. what's more, is that the individual chromosomes of each sperm and ovum cannot be directly mapped into the chromosomes of the parent because of a process called meiosis.
wrong.No, I didn't say that the sperm or ovum had complete DNA. But of course you will jump to any concluion in an impotent attempt to prove me wrong.the individual sperm and ova cells contain halfof the dna of the person. They don't have complete DNA and therefore can't be a human being. what's more, is that the individual chromosomes of each sperm and ovum cannot be directly mapped into the chromosomes of the parent because of a process called meiosis. Just more evidence that once conception occurs you a have seperate and distinct human being. Like I said, idiot would believe that a sperm and ovum were essential stages of a human being. They are essntial in producing a human being but they are not stages of life of the human being.
It is irrelevant because it is relative, and hence subject to a contractbetween Individuals.
Would that be right or wrong ?
Â
Basic rules ?
Is "Thou shalt notkill" a basic rule that allow us to live together ?
We kill animals for food.
We kill(execute) prisoners.
We kill soldiers and civilians in "collateral damage".
We kill Native Americans with Small Pox blankets.
We kill Japanese with nukes.
How can we liveif we didn'tkill ?
Of course she would.
Just like the choice youwould have if there is a capital punishment for eating.
Yes.
But notlegally.
People made millions in bootlegging and smuggling during Prohibition.
Motivated Quacks would make millions smuggling RU-486 or operating makeshift D&C chambers in basements in this day and age.
That includesfreedom from search and seizure of what one does privately with one's genitals or another consenting adult in the bedroom, in the sauna, on the dining table, on the kitchen sink, in the BDSM setup in the basement, or in the backseat of one's car ( out of public sight ).
And THAT, dear, is a right to privacy.
It isa matter of freedom of choice.
What one does with a partner in private sexual interaction should be no concernof the Law, if both are of age, AND consenting.
Most certainly.
And if the renegotiated instrument is not satisfactory enough, there are democratic ( and, failing which, undemocratic ) procedures like Secessions, Coups and Revolutions to overthrow that Contractas well.
They negotiatea contract which is binding on ALLpeople.
In this case, the obligation is binding on the WOMAN alone.
That makes the option invalid and discriminatory, and curtailing the freedom of women alone.
So, no soup.
There is a subtstantial difference between freedomof choice, and choice at gunpoint.
You don'thave a choice if oneof the alternatives trampleson your Liberty by implied threat of force.
Go figure.
not really. i can't go and put up an explicit porn billboard can i?
Depends on what explicit means? Can they put it on a bumper sticker? The ACLU will argue that they can.
It is irrelevant because it is relative, and hence subject to a contractbetween Individuals.
What is truly irrelevant is everything you post.
Â
Wow, you really are clueless.
What about the first amendment? Is it okay to advertise gentleman's clubs?
Sure, as long as they aren't driving down the highway with poster size pictures of naked women playing with their nipples and spreading their legs for the little kids.
one of the very first things that happens to many children is they get a woman's nipple shoved right in their face....shortly after they emerge from between her legs.
HAHAHA! I guess you got me there :)
liquor lady wrote: Wow, you really are clueless.
crabs, now there is a prime example of irony for you.
so what did that comment have to do with crabs??
so what did that comment have to do with crabs??
see:THX 1138 "The war in Iraq" 7/30/04 7:40pm
crabs needed a good example of irony as he apparently doesn't get it.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Â— The ACLU and Planned Parenthood sued Monday to block a Florida ballot measure that would pave the way for a law requiring parents to be told when their minor daughters seek abortions.
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127831,00.html
Anything to defeat the will of the people and to continue infanticide.
the USSC is there to protect the people from the will of a tyrannical majority
if you weren't such a dumbass, you'd know that
They haven't been doing a very good job of it lately.
Demon: the USSC is there to protect the people from the will of a tyrannical majority No it isn't. Nowhere does the Constitution say that that is the job of the USSC. Their real job is to uphold the Constitution as written. If you weren't such a dumbass, you'd know that.
poor Jethro, so dumb
Demon, you prove your ignorance with every post. You have no support for your position so just give up. Go back to school and learn something and maybe you can be a productive member of society.
my school>your bible college
i graduated, while you fester in the stink of failure
You attempt to perpetuate the lie that my objection to abortion is the Bible. You can lie to yourself but I pointed out numerous times it was all based on logic.
i graduated, while you fester in the stink of failure
I know that you and your buddy, spook, are insecure, hate filled jackasses.
on the contrary jethro, I don't hate you personally, just your unending ignorance
on the contrary jethro, I don't hate you personally, just your unending ignorance
Since you don't know what ignorance is I'll take that as a complment. Any attacks from people like you, make my day.
Your very post is ignorant, and it makes me laugh
The insane laugh a lot. But then they get really angry and have strange fits. Please remove all sharp objects from your immediate reach.
my school>your bible college i graduated, while you fester in the stink of failure
LOL!
As much as I try to stay out of Jethro's business, I gotta defend him here.
Trust me, he didn't go to any bible college.
Dumon flunked out of college then took another 7 years to get a degree.
Dumon=Slow.
I took four years to get my degree
Trust me, he didn't go to any bible college.
Ok, I was trying to give him some credit.
my school>your HVAC repair school
Dumon=Slower
torpid=vo tech
Juris Doctorate > bachelor's.
An education measuring match?
I thought this sort of thing went on over on the Gun Control thread.
Who's got the biggest sheepskin, Who's got the biggest gun.
We all know what this is about.
Damon brought it up.
You can say a lot of things about Jethro, but you can't say he's uneducated.
HEY! I have the biggest gun!!
THX 1138 8/5/04 6:15pm
I'm in the process of getting that+my MBA
You can say a lot of things about Jethro, but you can't say he's uneducated.
well i could, it'd just be a lie. :)
I'm in the process of getting that+my MBA
That's not really the point.
You may be educated, but you're an idiot.
Good Grief...
Sorry Rick, but he is acting like an idiot.Â
He brought it up.  Acting all superior, thinking he was Mr. College and Jethro was just some stupid fuck that didn't get past the 8th grade.
Talk to that dumbass. With all that education of his he should know when to back off and shut the fuck up.
Ares,
but who is the patient receiving care? very very very seldom is it actually the fetus.
Yes but they can and do.
why is it ok to remove a malignant tumor? genetically, it is different from the person suffering from cancer. yet we are actively working on ways to eliminate it? by many arguments from the anti-abortion crowd here, that the fetus has a different set of dna from the mother, that cancer would also be a different being by virtue of its different dna. what gives?
Sorry Ares I can't make the leap from tumor to child. If you can look at the pics I posted and equate the two so be it. I've never seen a tumor yawn or suck it's thumb. When the tumor can survive out of the womb and then grow into a person I'll consider it. I'm done with this topic for a while because I can't understand how someone could even equate the two, that's why I rarely post in here because of the justification and rationalization used to equate a baby to a friggen tumor. Sorry I just don't accept it.
That's why I usually stay away from this topic. I can be swayed or even walk away seeing the other person's point of view on most topics. Not this one, if 9 months of inconvienece is too much to ask of someone who willingly had sex then I think it's the most callous, selfish and cruel thing to suck a helpless child out of a womb and kill it. As long as it hasn't left the vagina it's o.k to cut it apart limb by limb. Look at some pics of an abortion, look at the pics I posted and tell me it's a zygote. Sorry I just can't and no amount of discussion will ever change my mind on that so it's better I just stay away from the topic as I have done in the past and agree to disagree.
Â
Jethro has a JD and has no sense of logical scrutiny? Where'd he get it from, Bolivia?
Only an idiot, like you ares, would believe that. Sperm cells and ovum cells, have DNA of the man or the woman. When the combine you have a different object with distinct DNA from the parents.
wrong. the individual sperm and ova cells contain halfof the dna of the person. what's more, is that the individual chromosomes of each sperm and ovum cannot be directly mapped into the chromosomes of the parent because of a process called meiosis.
wrong.No, I didn't say that the sperm or ovum had complete DNA. But of course you will jump to any concluion in an impotent attempt to prove me wrong.the individual sperm and ova cells contain halfof the dna of the person. They don't have complete DNA and therefore can't be a human being. what's more, is that the individual chromosomes of each sperm and ovum cannot be directly mapped into the chromosomes of the parent because of a process called meiosis. Just more evidence that once conception occurs you a have seperate and distinct human being. Like I said, idiot would believe that a sperm and ovum were essential stages of a human being. They are essntial in producing a human being but they are not stages of life of the human being.
Knock it off Damon and go back to being the good little telemarketer that you are.
just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
I have the best job ever, and it involves no telemarketing
It involves knee pads, doesn't it?
Telemarketer?
Geez!
THX, you should know by now to not listen to Torpid.
I work in HR, if you really must know
Torpedo-8 8/7/04 4:21pm
I know after seeing my picture you might think I'm a professional athlete, but alas, I am not
HR?
That's cool. Not my kind of work, but that's cool.
But I want to know, were you a telemarketer at one time?
God I hate telemarketers.
Not personally, but they irritate the hell out of me.
Thank God for the do not call list.
Now if they could just come up with a workable do not spam list.