| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sk8r-365
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
 |
|
Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Nicklas@Click.com typed:
| Quote: | On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:45:42 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I specifically want to limit the choice of killing a living baby.
You cannot kill a living baby---it's against the law.
|
A "fetus" isn't alive even though it's growing, huh? Although it moves?
It feels pain? It reacts to light? We all know living things don't grow,
react to pain and light. Living things don't move or consume, do they?
| Quote: | You can abort a fetus or blob of tissue under certain
parameters of the law.
A blob and fetus have "rights" connected with the
mother.
|
A blod who has nerves, brain, heart, bones, skin, eyes, who can move and
smile. The blob to which you refer is not a chunk of turkey fat.
--
sk8r-365
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
sk8r-365
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Nicklas@Click.com typed:
| Quote: | On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:45:42 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I specifically want to limit the choice of killing a living baby.
You cannot kill a living baby---it's against the law.
|
A "fetus" isn't alive even though it's growing, huh? Although it moves?
It feels pain? It reacts to light? We all know living things don't grow,
react to pain and light. Living things don't move or consume, do they?
| Quote: | You can abort a fetus or blob of tissue under certain
parameters of the law.
A blob and fetus have "rights" connected with the
mother.
|
A blod who has nerves, brain, heart, bones, skin, eyes, who can move and
smile. The blob to which you refer is not a chunk of turkey fat.
--
sk8r-365
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
sk8r-365
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Josh Rosenbluth typed:
| Quote: | On Aug 24, 11:55 pm, sk8r-365 <sk8r-...@sk8r.debian.etch.invalid.org
wrote:
Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Josh Rosenbluth typed:
Firstly, sk8r-365's position applies to all fetuses. Secondly, the
Illinois cases concerned second-trimester fetuses prior to fetal
viability.
Josh, you are exactly correct. I had chosen to broaden the issue (no pun
intended) to argue the position that all living people are deserving of
equal protection.
OK, but then you ducked this inquiry:
|
May not of read it. When a post/thread becomes a tome, I skim it until
something of note attaches to my attention.
| Quote: | If a mother hires a doctor to kill her newborn, she is prosecuted for
murder for hire.
|
If caught, yes.
| Quote: | If a woman has an abortion, you believe she has killed something with
the same rights as her newborn.
|
Yes, she's a killer. Although, I wouldn't use the cold word "something"
as you have to describe that individual who is at its Mothers' mercy. I
use words like "person", "child" and the like - it ain't a plant! I
don't use disconnected words to salve a callused conscience like "fetus"
- as if a "human fetus" isn't a living child.
| Quote: | She must then be prosectued for murder for hire, right?
|
No, she has lawfully hired the doctor to murder her child by aborting
him. There's a difference, I think you know this, between lawful and
right. It was lawful to own Negroes in the U.S., but is was never right.
--
sk8r-365
"It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good."
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
sk8r-365
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Josh Rosenbluth typed:
| Quote: | On Aug 24, 11:55 pm, sk8r-365 <sk8r-...@sk8r.debian.etch.invalid.org
wrote:
Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Josh Rosenbluth typed:
Firstly, sk8r-365's position applies to all fetuses. Secondly, the
Illinois cases concerned second-trimester fetuses prior to fetal
viability.
Josh, you are exactly correct. I had chosen to broaden the issue (no pun
intended) to argue the position that all living people are deserving of
equal protection.
OK, but then you ducked this inquiry:
|
May not of read it. When a post/thread becomes a tome, I skim it until
something of note attaches to my attention.
| Quote: | If a mother hires a doctor to kill her newborn, she is prosecuted for
murder for hire.
|
If caught, yes.
| Quote: | If a woman has an abortion, you believe she has killed something with
the same rights as her newborn.
|
Yes, she's a killer. Although, I wouldn't use the cold word "something"
as you have to describe that individual who is at its Mothers' mercy. I
use words like "person", "child" and the like - it ain't a plant! I
don't use disconnected words to salve a callused conscience like "fetus"
- as if a "human fetus" isn't a living child.
| Quote: | She must then be prosectued for murder for hire, right?
|
No, she has lawfully hired the doctor to murder her child by aborting
him. There's a difference, I think you know this, between lawful and
right. It was lawful to own Negroes in the U.S., but is was never right.
--
sk8r-365
"It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good."
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:33:05 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<cs@doj.gov> wrote:
| Quote: | Irrelevant, no vote, law, edict, regulation, or requirement can overturn
the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. I've taught you this before, did
it not sink in?
|
I think I see your problem, Curly
You don't have the credentials to "teach" something
that isn't real. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:33:05 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<cs@doj.gov> wrote:
| Quote: | Irrelevant, no vote, law, edict, regulation, or requirement can overturn
the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. I've taught you this before, did
it not sink in?
|
I think I see your problem, Curly
You don't have the credentials to "teach" something
that isn't real. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:27:37 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<cs@doj.gov> wrote:
| Quote: | True but the implementation still violates the 4th and 5th amendment.
|
According to whom?
Last I heard, you don't get to unilaterally decide
that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:27:37 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<cs@doj.gov> wrote:
| Quote: | True but the implementation still violates the 4th and 5th amendment.
|
According to whom?
Last I heard, you don't get to unilaterally decide
that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:45:42 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I specifically want to limit the choice of killing a living baby.
|
You cannot kill a living baby---it's against the law.
You can abort a fetus or blob of tissue under certain
parameters of the law.
A blob and fetus have "rights" connected with the
mother. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:45:42 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I specifically want to limit the choice of killing a living baby.
|
You cannot kill a living baby---it's against the law.
You can abort a fetus or blob of tissue under certain
parameters of the law.
A blob and fetus have "rights" connected with the
mother. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:18:39 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:7o04b4dvivuv4sqean147v57k8khk9q2av@4ax.com...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:20:47 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:52:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I'd have to say that in the particular instance we're talking about
here,
Yes, the fetus (live birth) has the same rights to life, liberty, and
the
pursuit of happiness that you and I have.
Well, legally they don't, Jeffy
Jeff is talking about a baby who survives an abortion. Yes, they have
the same legal rights, and that is not a controversial issue.
I keep forgetting that anecdotal evidence is so hard to
remember piece by piece.
Anecdotal?
|
Yes, Anecdotal.
One instance does not make an entire argument. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:18:39 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:7o04b4dvivuv4sqean147v57k8khk9q2av@4ax.com...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:20:47 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:52:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I'd have to say that in the particular instance we're talking about
here,
Yes, the fetus (live birth) has the same rights to life, liberty, and
the
pursuit of happiness that you and I have.
Well, legally they don't, Jeffy
Jeff is talking about a baby who survives an abortion. Yes, they have
the same legal rights, and that is not a controversial issue.
I keep forgetting that anecdotal evidence is so hard to
remember piece by piece.
Anecdotal?
|
Yes, Anecdotal.
One instance does not make an entire argument. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Aug 25, 11:43 am, Curly Surmudgeon <c...@doj.gov> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:44:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 25, 12:33 am, Curly Surmudgeon <c...@doj.gov> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:09:08 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:43:39 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:19:16 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
That was but one example, the Fed is responsible for many privacy
violations such as Income Tax which clearly violates the 4th and 5th
amendment.
The income tax was enacted by the 16th Amendment, which supersedes any
amendments that came previously.
True but the implementation still violates the 4th and 5th amendment.
By definition, those aspects of the 4th and 5th no longer apply per the
consent of a super majority of the governed, so they can't be violated.
Irrelevant, no vote, law, edict, regulation, or requirement can overturn
the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution.
A Constitutional Amendment can.
True. By implication you seem to be saying that the 14th amendment over
rule the 4th and 5th. Please show where the 14th says that.
|
It's the 16th. And it explicitly calls for an income tax:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Aug 25, 12:19 pm, sk8r-365 <sk8r-...@sk8r.debian.etch.invalid.org>
wrote:
| Quote: | Feverishly pounding upon a keyboard Josh Rosenbluth typed:
It's only lawful because of Roe v. Wade. What happens if you get your
way and it becomes unlawful?
If I have my way, as you put it, 1.4 million children won't be killed in
the womb in the U.S. this year. Josh, at what are driving?
|
Whether you truely believe a fetus is no different than a newborn (or
you and me) in terms of legal rights. If it is, then logic demands
you punish a woman who gets an abortion as a murderer for hire.
| Quote: | Doesn't logic demand she be treated the same as a mother who hires a
doctor to kill her newborn, i.e. to be prosecuted for murder for hire?
I've been clear.
|
No you have not. You have ducked the issue.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Barack Obama supports "live birth abortion" |
|
|
On Aug 25, 4:39 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <c...@doj.gov> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:30:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 25, 11:43 am, Curly Surmudgeon <c...@doj.gov> wrote:
Irrelevant, no vote, law, edict, regulation, or requirement can overturn
the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution.
A Constitutional Amendment can.
True. By implication you seem to be saying that the 14th amendment over
rule the 4th and 5th. Please show where the 14th says that.
It's the 16th. And it explicitly calls for an income tax:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Right, the 16th, but there is no clause in there that states that "taxes
on income" can violate either the 4th or 5th amendment.
|
Each amendment supersedes any and all prior contrary provisions,
including those in the Bill of Rights.
For example, the Flag Burning Amendment ("The Congress shall have
power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United
States") has come very close to passing Congress. If it did, and was
ratified by the states, it would supersede the First Amendment, which
currently protects flag burning under Free Speech.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
