|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
Yes, we get it. You;re an illiterate racist who resents congress's constitutional authority to crate and raise taxes. Union dues? Get a job that doesn't require joining a union. YOU join THEM; they can decide where funding goes. General Robert E Lee wrote: Born humans are taxed, dued, and fee'd, and fined with many of the funds going to places they would never donate to as an individual, taxes go to government dependency, union dues to pac's that many individuals disagree with, fees, and fines in Obamacare to support free contraception. Get it yet?
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
Depends on the state. You certainly will be charged with assault--and there is no way to kick a woman hard enough to terminate a pregnancy without injuring her as well (although it's nice to see that you hve nothing but contempt for women.) In states with fetal homicide laws, you will be charged. However, those laws are not based on some chimeric rights of the fetus. but the right of the woman to carry to term if she so desires. NOBODY else gets make that decision. Every fetal homicide law has language specifically differentiating the law from abortion. Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> So if I kick an 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach, killing the fetus but otherwise not injuring the mother, I cannot be charged? Good to know...
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
And you don't have enough IQ points to debate her. big al wrote: <quoted text> To put is simply, Precious, you don’t have enough human blood to debate me.
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
Nice science fiction. Sorry, but australopithecus would have already been far too genetically diverse to breed with chimpanzees. Keep your fantasies to yourself. big al wrote: As usual, the genetic distance from Caucasians to Africans is large, but note that the Africans that are farthest from Caucasians are the West Africans (e.g., Nigerians) and the Pygmies, indicating that they are descendants of the first migrants into Africa. The short stature of the pygmies is consistent with the short stature of Australopithecus. The West Africans live near the chimpanzees and are the most simian of the Africans, which is consistent with an early generalized Australopithecus from Eurasia entering Africa and interbreeding with chimpanzees. The next migrants were the steatopygous Australopithecines, probably from the Orient, then India, who became the San (Bushmen and Hottentots). And the last migrants were modern Caucasians, probably from the Middle East, who interbred with earlier migrants and became the NE Africans.
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
It's american law; the talmud has nothing to do with it. Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> Thus, splitting the Talmudic hair...
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
It did, because it was the only way to keep the southern states from seceding. Note that slavery was allowed, not protected. There was no "right to own slaves"; only cetqain aspects were codified: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.h... lighteredknot wrote: <quoted text> Did you ever read the Constitution? It allowed slavery.
|
|
“Blessed Litha”
Level 1
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> If the law is as you describe it, the LEGISLATORS certainly did. But are lawmakers the one's who grant the right to exist? It was perfectly legal to murder an Indian in the 1700's. If the legislators split hairs, it was due to the anti-choice movement which was trying to do something it had no right to do, get rid of legal abortion using these laws. Our laws are based upon our civil rights, outline in, and protected by, the Constitution. Was there a law that said killing an "Indian" was legal, or did people ignore the law and look the other way? Murder, by definition, is illegal killing. You can't have legal illegal killing.
|
|
“The ORIGINAL Gangster!”
Level 4
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
cpeter1313 wrote: Wrong. Those are all government agencies, not people. <quoted text> And where do they get their funding from? Cats? Rabbits? I am FORCED by taxation to support people I would otherwise refuse help. Your argument is not valid, whatever you think of my compassion.
|
|
|
|
“The ORIGINAL Gangster!”
Level 4
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
[QUOTE who="cpeter1313" (although it's nice to see that you hve nothing but contempt for women.) <quoted text>[/QUOTE] (it's nice to see that you hve nothing but contempt for the unborn)
|
|
“The ORIGINAL Gangster!”
Level 4
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Bitner wrote: <quoted text>
Our laws are based upon our civil rights, outline in, and protected by, the Constitution. Was there a law that said killing an "Indian" was legal, or did people ignore the law and look the other way? Murder, by definition, is illegal killing. You can't have legal illegal killing. You people are still ignoring plain facts with your circular reasoning. SLAVERY was a legal right, outlined in, and protected by, the Constitution. Indians were denied Civil Liberties EXACTLY as you say the fetus has none. Hypothetical question: If abortion is made illegal, will the Federal government be within its power to retroactively prosecute anyone who's had one? After all, it will then be an "illegal killing" and there is no statute of limitations on murder.
|
|
“The ORIGINAL Gangster!”
Level 4
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
a--x--e wrote: <quoted text> I acknowledge the legality of abortion. I just don't agree with it. The person you were replying to neither agrees with nor acknowledged that at one point, slavery was quite LEGAL. Revisionist history. That was my point, and yours, if I'm not mistaken. Y'now, I've tried to address this issue from a dozen different angles and am clearly getting nowhere. I think willful blindness must be in play.
|
|
“Blessed Litha”
Level 1
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> You people are still ignoring plain facts with your circular reasoning. SLAVERY was a legal right, outlined in, and protected by, the Constitution. Indians were denied Civil Liberties EXACTLY as you say the fetus has none. Hypothetical question: If abortion is made illegal, will the Federal government be within its power to retroactively prosecute anyone who's had one? After all, it will then be an "illegal killing" and there is no statute of limitations on murder. Abortion has been illegal in this country, and it was not considered murder. It was simply an illegal abortion. The more pertinent question would be, what do YOU think the punishment should be for a woman who has an illegal abortion? I'm not missing the point. YOU are the one using non sequiturs The fact is that only the born have civil rights. That is why slavery is now illegal, because the born have civil rights. The unborn do not. So, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to fetal homicide laws, as you implied.
|
|
“Blessed Litha”
Level 1
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> Y'now, I've tried to address this issue from a dozen different angles and am clearly getting nowhere. I think willful blindness must be in play. So slavery was once legal, and now it's not. And? Abortion was once illegal, and now it's not. And guess what? Those two changes were made for the very same reason, that each person "born or naturalized" here has the right to "life, liberty and property". And since property includes one's own body, slavery is illegal, and abortion is legal. Deal with it.
|
|
“The ORIGINAL Gangster!”
Level 4
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Bitner wrote: <quoted text> So slavery was once legal, and now it's not. And? Abortion was once illegal, and now it's not. And guess what? Those two changes were made for the very same reason, that each person "born or naturalized" here has the right to "life, liberty and property". And since property includes one's own body, slavery is illegal, and abortion is legal. Deal with it. I simply find your pronouncements denying the fetus person-hood and declaring it to have no civil liberties to be completely arbitrary and specious. Infantacide is was and always will be wrong. Abortion? Not so much-- this country, that country, this state, that state, this time, that time-- Arbitrary.
|
|
“Blessed Litha”
Level 1
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> I simply find your pronouncements denying the fetus person-hood and declaring it to have no civil liberties to be completely arbitrary and specious. Infantacide is was and always will be wrong. Abortion? Not so much-- this country, that country, this state, that state, this time, that time-- Arbitrary. Your argument is with the Constitution, not me.
|
|
Level 1
Since: Jan 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
a--x--e wrote: <quoted text> I acknowledge the legality of abortion. I just don't agree with it. The person you were replying to neither agrees with nor acknowledged that at one point, slavery was quite LEGAL. Revisionist history. That was my point, and yours, if I'm not mistaken. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
And I paid for the atrocity in iraq, something I certainly didn't agree with. Get over it. You are not the sole arbiter of where tax money goes or why. Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> And where do they get their funding from? Cats? Rabbits? I am FORCED by taxation to support people I would otherwise refuse help. Your argument is not valid, whatever you think of my compassion.
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
I have no more contempt for fetuses than I do for goldfish. My RESPECT, on the other hand, is for the woman whose life will be changed by the pregnancy, and who has every right to determine her own fate. Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> (it's nice to see that you hve nothing but contempt for the unborn)
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
Well, that's meaningless. The slavery issue has already been explained. Native americans were not considered citizens and thus were not seen as having rights. Fetuses, unlike slaves and native americans, are not independent, sentient entities; their existence is a physical burden on the woman. We can't put fetuses on plantations or reservations. Moreover, you cannot grant rights to the woman's body for them that would override her established rights. That is enslaving the woman to the fetus--and you are the one who keeps playing that card. You cannot prosecute someone for a legal action; since all abortions up to the signing of your hypothetical bill would be legal, there's not a frigging thing the government can do to them. Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> You people are still ignoring plain facts with your circular reasoning. SLAVERY was a legal right, outlined in, and protected by, the Constitution. Indians were denied Civil Liberties EXACTLY as you say the fetus has none. Hypothetical question: If abortion is made illegal, will the Federal government be within its power to retroactively prosecute anyone who's had one? After all, it will then be an "illegal killing" and there is no statute of limitations on murder.
|
|
“Reality is better than truth.”
Level 3
Since: Nov 09
Indianapolis
|
Please wait...
No, you've used the same angle and several different words. Your argument keeps comparing separate entities with fetuses, which by definition impose upon a born person with established rights. Walter Mellone Manne wrote: <quoted text> Y'now, I've tried to address this issue from a dozen different angles and am clearly getting nowhere. I think willful blindness must be in play.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|