Atheists and Bush
beer+football
> >
> > That late-term abortion is murder, since the unborn baby
> could survive
> > outside the womb. See? Not a single mention of God. :-)
>
> Strawman, since that's the definition of viability. Killing
> a *viable* fetus *is* murder, since the fetus has become a
> biologically independent entity.
Oh really? Then why are second and third trimester abortions legal?
>
> > That homosexually is unnatural, a biological or genetic
> defect. No mention
> > of God there either. :-)
>
> Driving a car is unnatural. It doesn't automatically make it
> bad. And as for "biological defect", how does one determine
> whether a trait is a defect or not?
Nearsightedness is a defect. It is best to be able to see clearly.
Homosexuality is a defect. It is best to be sexually attracted to the
opposite sex (procreation and all...).
> > Anti-2nd Amendment, anti-free speech, anti-10th Amendment,
> anti-property
> > rights, etc.
>
> How is supporting gun control anti 2nd Amendment?
"...shall not be infringed."
(I won't
> even go into the fact that the first 13 words of the
> Amendment are routinely ignored by gun nuts.)
Historical revisionism. When the Founding Fathers talked about a "militia",
they were not refering to the National Guard, for crying out loud! They
meant "people willing to use their privately owned arms".
>
> The Republicans showed their disdain for the 10th Amendment
> in Florida last December.
Both parties have trampled on the 10th Amendment. The Democrats do it more
often.
>
> If anything, we Democrats are ardent supporters of free
> speech.
Speech codes? "Hate crime" laws?
> It's the Republicans who want to censor everything!
Go tell that to Tipper and "Holy" Joe Lieberman...
>
> As for property rights: even on your own property you cannot
> break the law of the land.
???
I was refering to eminent domain and "wetlands" land-grabs.
>
> > > They may be a minority, but they have the greatest
> political
> > > influence in the party. THAT's what scares me.
> > >
> > > Look at today's barrage of anti-abortion measures.
> >
> > What "barrage"? No longer giving taxpayer monies to other
> nations to lobby
> > them to allow legalized abortion? Sounds like sound fiscal
> policy to me, as
> > well as a less arrogant foreign folicy.
>
> Not counseling poor people overseas on abortion adds to the
> problem of poverty and overpopulation, whch are BAD fiscal
> policy in the long run.
Abortion is a very divisive domestic problem for us. Why should we export it
and all the problems that come with it?
The abortion gag rule will also lead
> to the deaths of many women.
And to saving the lives of many unborn children (at least in the eyes of a
pro-lifer...).
"Oh, so you have an ectopic
> pregnancy. Too bad! We can't help you there, but we CAN help
> you pick out a coffin for your funeral!"
You know damned well that the vast majority of that money was used to lobby
gov'ts to change their abortion policy to suit radical abortionists here in
the US, not to save women with problem pregnancies!
>
> There's also Bush's upcoming ban on fetal tissue research,
Which is a shame in the same sense that it's a shame people cannot sell
their organs to people in need of transplants. There are ethical questions,
certainly, but it has an overall negative impact of people's lives.
> plus his recent pledge to outlaw abortion,
He's pro-life. Does this really surprise you? If so, why?
plus his
> nomination of Ashcroft,
The AG does not make abortion policy...
plus his decision to "review" the
> government's approval of RU-486.
RU-486 is a stupid drug anyway. Instead of two doctor's visits, you need
three. But during the dangerous time (when the fetus is actually being
aborted) you are home alone without a doctor in sight! Leave it to the
French to think of something that stupid...
In one week, Bush has
> launched an all out war against reproductive freedom.
Or mass-infanticide, depending upon how one views it...
>
> > GWBush
> > > stated to the anti-Roe v Wade demonstrators today that
> his
> > > goal is the illegalization of all abortion.
> >
> > True, as a pro-lifer, that is his goal. But he said during
> the campaign that
> > this is not the right time to over-reach trying to achieve
> that goal.
>
> "he said during the campaign". Yeah, he said it. But we all
> know, what a Republican says during the campaign is merely
> designed to get him elected.
Same with Democrats, O partisan one...
Once elected, promises go out
> the window. Really, who cares what the Republcian liars say
> during their campaigns?
Fuckin' demagogue...
>
> > The
> > abortionists have nothing to worry about for the present
> time...
>
> For the present time - that's what worries me.
>
> We should NEVER have to worry about our rights.
I don't really consider abortion a "right". Most people agree with me (see
the recent LA Times poll on this issue).
I think it should remain legal during the first trimester, but I can see the
arguments made by those who think it should be completely illegal. What I
cannot understand are the "arguments" made by those who think third
trimester, gov't funded, partial birth abortions performed on 13 year olds
is a "right"...
They should
> be permanent, guaranteed, sacrosanct.
Why? Because you say so?
Once a freedom is won,
> it should never be taken away.
Depends on what that "freedom" entails. If it is arguably infanticide, then
there deserves to be an open and honest debate.
>
> > > They have little power compared to the Religious Right.
> Look
> > > at the last 20 years.
> >
> > Look at the last 10 years of the abortion debate, and see
> how a relatively
> > small group like NOW has completely shaped the debate
> (with the help of a
> > pliant media).
>
> Eh? You're sounding like a paranoid right-wing loon. Black
> helicopters and all.
Interesting that you resort to ad-hominem...
Most journalists are pro-choice. The NOW, which is a relatively small fringe
group, is given respectability in the media. If the NOW says abortion is a
"reproductive right", that's what the media calls it. If the NOW says
pro-lifers should be called anti-choicers, that's what the media does. If
the NOW calls Congressmen who oppose abortion "anti-women", that's how the
media reports it. If the NOW calls radical abortionists "strong supporters
of women's rights", that's how the media tells it. And on and on...
>
> > Or look at the last 10 years in race relations, and see
> how Jackson and
> > Sharpton have defined what's "right" and "wrong" with the
> help of a pliant
> > media...
>
> Again, the paranoia! Look out, it's the "liberal media"!!
> Ooh, aah!
You don't bother to contest my point, you merely resort to more ad-hominem.
Sad...
>
> Do you have something against civil rights?
Sigh. That last comment goes a long way towards proving my point. If Jesse
Jackson says it, it must be a good thing. If someone questions it, they must
be "anti-civil rights" or maybe even "racist".
You're bereft of all objectivity. You merely parrot the media line, but you
call me paranoid for pointing out the fact that this has happened to
MILLIONS of Americans.
I hope I still have the receipt for my irony-meter. It just blew up...
>
> > > Robertson is essentially the puppetmaster of the GOP.
> >
> > Oh, pul-lease! Is that what you Dems really think of the
> GOP?
>
> Who are the most powerful members of the GOP? Who keep
> getting the top spots in Congress? Extremists like Lott,
> Helms and DeLay.
You know nothing about how Congress works, I see. Power in Washington is
given to members on the basis of seniority. Moderates rarely last long in
Congress. Firebrands do, if they live in a district/state with the right
kind of demographics.
BTW, Lott is hardly an "extremist". Helms is, and a case for that could be
made for DeLay, but not Lott. (Of course, to you anyone to the right of Mao
is a "right-wing extremist", so whatcha gonna do...)
> > > > > Just watch. Bush has already appointed John
> Asscrotch,
> > > and
> > > > > declared today a National Day of Prayer.
> > > >
> > > > So?
> > >
> > > Religious terrorism.
> >
> > Hardly.
>
> Are you really an atheist?
You question question someone's atheism simply because they don't think
prayer is "terrorism"? You like to throw around the word "extremist", but
that word most aptly describes YOU.
(BTW, I am agnostic, not atheist. But I've heard agnosticism described as
"weak atheism".)
>
> > >
> > > And today, he has made it clear that he is utterly
> opposed
> > > to abortion, and will do all he can to take this
> precious
> > > freedom from us.
> >
> > "Precious" freedom? Half the country thinks it's murder,
>
> That doesn't make it so. They don't have to have abortions
> if they don't want to.
Let's say we legalize drowning babies under 2 years of age.
Your argument is basically : "People who have a problem with this don't have
to drown their babies if they don't want to." Weak.
>
> The issue of abortion is primarily a medical issue. The
> fucking moralizing fundamentalists should just butt out of a
> decision that should be made only by a woman and her doctor.
They would, if they didn't believe it to be murder. Also, not everyone who
is opposed to abortion is a "moralizing fundamentalist".
>
> > and almost everyone
> > agrees that Roe v. Wade was a baseless and flawed
> decision.
>
> False.
See the LA Times poll. Most people disagree with the ruling. You are more
than welcome to agree with it if you want, but that doesn't change this
fact. (Your response was bizarre, as if you have a problem with reading
comprehension...)
It is based on the right to privacy.
> The decision was
> 7-2.
If you want to get down and dirty about it, where is there a "right" to
privacy in the Constitution? Also, isn't that a pretty cheesy way to rule on
the issue of abortion? Rather than speak to the real issues, (which are when
does life begin, what are the powers of the states, what are the powers of
the legislative branch, etc.) the SC bases their decsion on this very
divisive subject on some obscure "right to privacy". Weak.
>
> > It's a "freedom"
> > we've only had 28 years. Slavery was onced considered a
> "freedom" too, you
> > know...
>
> Slavery denied human beings their right to self
> determination. Abortion does no such thing,
No, but it arguably kills millions of innocents each year. That actually
sounds WORSE than slavery!
while outlawing
> abortion denies human beings the right to self
> determination.
Depends on how you look at it. If it isn't a life, then you are right. If it
is a life, however, then laws against abortion are nothing more than laws
against a particularly vile form of murder.
> >
> > > > When abortions are
> > > > > restricted,
> > > >
> > > > Restricted? Good. Made illegal? Bad.
> > >
> > > Restricted in what way is good? It's restricted enough
> as it
> > > is.
> >
> > You think so? Have you never heard of third-trimester
> abortions? They're
> > legal, you know, thanks to Clinton's dual vetoes...
>
> THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS ARE ONLY USED IN RARE, EXTREME
> CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER!!!
I wish this was the case. You are parroting the media line again. The truth
is something far less pretty...
>
> Do you favor the fetus's life over that of the mother?
If the fetus is not alive, then of course not. If the fetus is alive,
however, then they should be treated equally. Any mother who would kill her
own child to save her skin is a miserable human being. A mother should be
willing to die for her child, not vice versa.
>
> > > The reason they're failing is because they're vastly
> > > under-funded.
> >
> > Bullshit. We here in America spend more per student than
> ANY OTHER NATION ON
> > EARTH and get the worst return for our money. Mo' money is
> NOT the answer.
> > Accountability is.
>
> Actually, both are. I'd like to see more money spent on
> school,
Did you not read the above paragraph? If we already spend more money per
student than any other nation on earth but get worse results then they do,
how in the hell is MORE money a solution???
and also allow parents the right to choose between
> different public schools. I'd like to see more
> accountability. But school vouchers are not the answer.
> Church and state should not mix.
Vouchers do not neccesarily have to mix church and state (not all private
schools are religious in nature). Also, even if the parent took money in the
form of a voucher and sent the child to a parochial school, I really don't
see a big church-state issue. Only an ardent hater of religion would even
bother to make the case.
>
> > > > The Dems are more pro-censorship than the GOP. See
> Tipper
> > > Gore, the
> > > > Clintons, Al Gore, "Holy" Joe Lieberman, etc.
> > >
> > > I oppose that, too. But when it comes to censorship, I'd
> > > have to disagree. The GOP are far more censorious.
> >
> > Debateable. See campus "speech codes" and "hate crimes"
> legislation...
>
> "Speech codes"? What are those? Is that when a campus
> discourages the use of terrorist threats?
It's when one college kid called a black college kid a "water buffalo" and
gets expelled because of the supposed racial undertones of the insult...
>
> I support hate crimes legislation. A gay man beating up a
> straight man simply because he hates straights should be
> charged with a more serious crime than a similar beating
> without the element of hate toward a certain group.
Why? If the result is the same, why should one crime be worse than another?
We should punish result, not intent. Punishing intent is nothing more than
the thought police in action.
>
> A hate crime, as well as victimizing an individual, also
> acts as a terrorist threat to a group.
That's stretching the word "terrorist" quite a bit. Of course, this is
coming from someone who calls prayer an act of terrorism, so I'm not really
surprised...
> > No legislation of this kind has been passed. Voter
> referendums have passed,
> > however. What's more democratic than that?
>
> Legislation HAS been passed due to referendums, which
> usually use stealth wording to hide their true intentions
> ("defense of marriage" my ass!)
Defense of "traditional" marriage...
In American style democracy,
> we do not allow a majority to restrict the rights of a
> minority.
Then explain to me why 16 and 17 year olds cannot vote, smoke, or drink...
We cannot allow a tyrranny of the majority. Such
> referendums have been passed, but they should be found
> unconstitutional, since they deprive gays of equal rights. I
> hope the courts wise up.
>
> Do you support freedom and equal rights? I hope so.
Yes. If a state chooses to recognize gay marriages, then so be it. But the
marriage license should only be recognized IN THAT STATE. We can't have the
courts or the legislature of a single state imposing their will upon the
residents of the other 49...
>
> > > So, you tacitly support the Religious Right by suporting
> the
> > > GOP.
> >
> > No, since only about 20% of the GOP is RR.
>
> But this 20% essentiaolly dictate GOP policy.
And you call me paranoid...
Look at the
> GOP's platform. Look at their leadership. Look at their
> agenda for the USA. Look at what they're doing NOW.
Working with Dems on education reform? Oh no! Horror of horrors!
>
> > Do you tacitly support the Black
> > Panthers and the Nation of Islam by supporting the Dems?
> Black voters make
> > up almost 20% of the Democrat Party...
>
> Bad analogy. The BP and the NOI have little if any political
> clout.
Perhaps not the NOI or the BP. But radical race-baiters like Al Sharpton do
have a lot of clout in the Democrat Party. Gore, Bradley and Hillary all
visited him during the campaign. They did this even though the guy has
called for the killing of police officers, said he admired Hitler, and was
responsible for a riot in which two Jewish people were killed and their
store was burned to the ground.
Jackson Harvey
> > Driving a car is unnatural. It doesn't automatically make it
> > bad. And as for "biological defect", how does one determine
> > whether a trait is a defect or not?
>
> Nearsightedness is a defect. It is best to be able to see clearly.
> Homosexuality is a defect. It is best to be sexually attracted to the
> opposite sex (procreation and all...).
Who gets to decide that? With the supposed population problem (which is very
real in some countries) the natural occurrence of homosexuality would seem to be
a good thing.
> > Do you favor the fetus's life over that of the mother?
>
> If the fetus is not alive, then of course not. If the fetus is alive,
> however, then they should be treated equally. Any mother who would kill her
> own child to save her skin is a miserable human being. A mother should be
> willing to die for her child, not vice versa.
There is little question that the fetus is alive. Bacteria are alive, and we
happily kill them. The question is whether a fetus has rights, including a
right to life.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Andrew J. Brehm
> beer+football wrote:
>
> > > Driving a car is unnatural. It doesn't automatically make it bad. And
> > > as for "biological defect", how does one determine whether a trait is
> > > a defect or not?
> >
> > Nearsightedness is a defect. It is best to be able to see clearly.
> > Homosexuality is a defect. It is best to be sexually attracted to the
> > opposite sex (procreation and all...).
>
> Who gets to decide that? With the supposed population problem (which is
> very real in some countries) the natural occurrence of homosexuality would
> seem to be a good thing.
It might be best to see clearly, but nearsightedness can easily be
"cured" by wearing glasses. There is no reason to do anything else about
it.
Why is it best (for everybody) to be sexually attracted to the opposite
sex? For me it is certainly _better_ if others are not, as it keeps
competition down.
> > > Do you favor the fetus's life over that of the mother?
> >
> > If the fetus is not alive, then of course not. If the fetus is alive,
> > however, then they should be treated equally. Any mother who would kill
> > her own child to save her skin is a miserable human being. A mother
> > should be willing to die for her child, not vice versa.
>
> There is little question that the fetus is alive. Bacteria are alive, and
> we happily kill them. The question is whether a fetus has rights,
> including a right to life.
Even if the fetus has a right to life this would not give us a definite
answer of whether the mother-to-be would thus have the obligation to
care for the fetus.
Your right to your life also doesn't obligate me to support you, or does
it? (This question goes to the both of you.)
The real question is whether the mother has somehow agreed to support
the fetus by "producing" it, but in this case the father would be
equally obligated to do so (as half of the child is his). If the
mother-to-be has not agreed to having a child but it happened as an
accident, how can we claim that she would have the obligation?
Maybe the solution is to let those who believe in an obligation to
support the fetus to pay for the service of keeping it alive and then
support it after it is born too. Or maybe the solution is to set a date
(a number of weeks) after which the fetus would have rights...
I do not know.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Jackson Harvey
> It might be best to see clearly, but nearsightedness can easily be
> "cured" by wearing glasses. There is no reason to do anything else about
> it.
Even this example is not as clear-cut as one would think. It is not clear at
any given point what characteristics are evolutionarily desirable. Some animals
utilize the sense of smell more than humans, some utilize the sense of hearing
more than humans, and some have better sight than humans. All have been
"chosen" by evolution to survive thus far. What may be considered a defect in
the current environment may be a decided advantage in a future environment, or
may lead to an advantage in the current environment after many generations.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Al Klein
<harv...@tc.umn.edu> posted in alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
>beer+football wrote:
>> If the fetus is alive,
>> however, then they should be treated equally. Any mother who would kill her
>> own child to save her skin is a miserable human being. A mother should be
>> willing to die for her child, not vice versa.
You're overlooking something. She's not giving her life for the fetus
- it's a question of whether the fetus dies or they BOTH die. The
fetus can't survive the death of the mother until near the end of the
second trimester at the very earliest.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
NM
---snipped---
>
> "...shall not be infringed."
>
> (I won't
> > even go into the fact that the first 13 words of the
> > Amendment are routinely ignored by gun nuts.)
------------------
The second amendment is a "declaratory clause", as referred to in the
first
paragraph.
The second amendment, in its entirety..
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Notice that it states "the right of the people".
NOT "the right of a well regulated Militia"
NOT "so long as a well regulated Militia exists"
NOT "the right of the people if they are in a well regulated Militia"
NOT "if the people are properly trained and licensed"
NOT "as it suits the government"
IT'S "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".
============
NM
DarkAngel
Today we'll argue what rights we should have according to what a 200+
years old document tells us, because if we started thinking for ourselves
what rights we should demand we might have to change a thing or two (or
ten) about how things are organised in our country...
Quite frankly, rights aren't determined by a piece of paper but by the
blood and sweat of revolutionaries. It's great time you guys had a second
American Revolution.
--
a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
"You must learn to live with your own conscience, your
own morality, your own decisions, your own self. You
alone can do it. There is no authority but yourself."
- Crass, "Yes Sir, I will"
The Anarchism FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
Fred Stone
PMJI, we Americans have a revolution every four years. It's called an
election.
And don't tell me how Bush stole this one. If Gore wasn't such a *loser* to
begin with, the dems wouldn't have blown their chance. I mean really, sitting
VP for a president with high popularity, economy going great guns (at the
time), the guy had it made in the shade. The fact that it was as close as it
was tells me that Gore dumped it big time.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
DarkAngel
> DarkAngel wrote:
> > Today we'll argue what rights we should have according to what a 200+
> > years old document tells us, because if we started thinking for ourselves
> > what rights we should demand we might have to change a thing or two (or
> > ten) about how things are organised in our country...
> >
> > Quite frankly, rights aren't determined by a piece of paper but by the
> > blood and sweat of revolutionaries. It's great time you guys had a second
> > American Revolution.
>
> PMJI, we Americans have a revolution every four years. It's called an
> election.
Oh please. Representative democracy is a reactionary institution, not
revolutionary. A lot of petty bourgeois posturing, and whoever wins is always a
representative of the power elite anyway.
> And don't tell me how Bush stole this one.
He did. Not that I care who won. Gore, Bush or Nader... or Browne for that
matter. All a bunch of elitists who want power over the people. There isn't one
government worthy of existence.
--
a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
"We can break these chains, we make them up ourselves"
- False Prophets, "Baghdad Stomp"
NM
---snipped---
> years old document tells us, because if we started thinking for ourselves
> what rights we should demand we might have to change a thing or two (or
> ten) about how things are organised in our country...
We won't argue what you propose as it is a false premise. Rights are
inherent and unalienable. They are only abridged by others/government.
The U.S. Constitution enumerates existent rights as a guide so that
others/government will not abridge them. It doesn't claim the rights so
enumerated are the only rights either. See the 9th and 10th
ammendments. You can work for change all you want. The age of the
Constitution is irrelevant to the conversation. Correctness has no
expiration date. Demand as you will. The processes for achieving your
demands are existant within that 200+ year old document.
> Quite frankly, rights aren't determined by a piece of paper
No one who understands the Constitution claims this. Rights are
inherent and unalienable, and the founders stated belief, endowed by our
"Creator".
> but by the
> blood and sweat of revolutionaries.
They don't determine rights either. Rights are existant, revolution or
not. Whether or not they can be practiced/enjoyed is determined by the
blood and sweat of revolutionaries.
> It's great time you guys had a second American Revolution.
Why? Specifically?
NM
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
> > PMJI, we Americans have a revolution every four years. It's called an
> > election.
>
> Oh please. Representative democracy is a reactionary institution, not
> revolutionary. A lot of petty bourgeois posturing, and whoever wins is always a
> representative of the power elite anyway.
I thought Marxist rhetoric went out when the Wall fell.
> > And don't tell me how Bush stole this one.
>
> He did.
I realize that the electoral college system led to an anomalous win for Bush, but
it's
not the first time. As I recall from my reading of the Federalist Papers, the
intent was
that a candidate must win over many different parts of the country, not just a
plurality
from one section at the expense of other sections.
> Not that I care who won. Gore, Bush or Nader... or Browne for that
> matter. All a bunch of elitists who want power over the people. There isn't one
> government worthy of existence.
Perhaps you could point out a viable, functioning anarchy somewhere in the world
so that we could have some standard of comparison?
I don't care if it *is* trite, but I'll keep the US *republic* even if I don't
agree with
the current leadership. Not "my country right or wrong" but hey, I've got no big
beef
with the way things are.
When they try to force me to pray or something, I'll join you at the barricade.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
Life's a beach - then you dive.
John Shafto
>
> Why is it best (for everybody) to be sexually attracted to the opposite
> sex? For me it is certainly _better_ if others are not, as it keeps
> competition down.
You know, I think that most hetero's are not bothered by the behavior
and existence of homosexuals, for this reason, and for support of the
liberty
to do what one pleases with their own body. Darwinian genetic competition
says homosexuality is good for heteros. The trouble, and I think where
most heteros (religious et al) start to take exception to homosexuality, is
when the behavior is allowed to become an accepted societal norm, and
even taught as a "good" thing by government schools. They fear their
genetic legacy (children) will be harmed if their freethinking children
make the choice to be homosexual based on this societal/govt influence.
Darwinian genetics tells them to fight it ferociously.
Now, I understand, and don't need to hear the argument that it is not
a choice. Even though psychologists and social workers all
overwhelmingly agree it is, this could easily be for benefit of those
who need a reason why they are "different". Most agree that once
the sexual behavior is started (conditioned), it is very often no longer
a choice to change, but at the same time, science has yet to prove a
consistent genetic or biological "cause" for the initial choice. So, as
long as this doubt exists, homosexuality will be a huge threat to genetic
legacy, and will not be supported by the majority with children.
If the "Gay Gene" were ever found, it would be a cure all to many
problems.
--
"Crisis is the rallying cry of tyrants"
-- James Madison
Guedo Sarragucci
religious belief, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ISSUE COMMON LAW! Such
laws are dictated by the states; what should be the debate is whether the
first amendment's forbidding of the establishment of a religion should
forbid them from banning abortion.
--
Try these, you get paid for receiving junk mail!
http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/671736
http://www.inboxcash.com/$10/referral.asp?id=510349
"beer+football" <rob3...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uk7sECXiAHA.326@cpmsnbbsa09...
Guedo Sarragucci
common mutation, but the fact that homosexuals cannot [for obvious reasons]
reproduce negates the possibility of it being an acquired genetic trait.
But since this is a Libertarian newsgroups, lets talk about what peves
Libertarians about the homosexual movement, and what we support
full-heartedly. What I myself, and I've observed many others as well,
dislike about the movement is that it tends to devolve into a struggle for
special or preferential treatment; they ask for extra tough penalties for
crimes commited against homosexuals, they ask for communist government
control over privately owned businesses. But I support their freedom to
choose their own lifestyle, and would fight alongside them to the death to
defend their freedom in this respect. Just accept that if someone doesn't
agree with the way you live, you can't tell them they HAVE to like and
support your choice.
--
Try these, you get paid for receiving junk mail!
http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/671736
http://www.inboxcash.com/$10/referral.asp?id=510349
news:t7bih0p...@corp.supernews.com...
Jackson Harvey
> Of course, the very idea of a gay gene is ridiculous. It *could* be a
> common mutation, but the fact that homosexuals cannot [for obvious reasons]
> reproduce negates the possibility of it being an acquired genetic trait.
That is faulty logic if the gene is recessive, and if possessing part of the
sequence carries some evolutionary benefit. For instance, carrying two genes
for sickle cell is fatal, but carrying only one gene for sickle cell causes
some resistance to malaria.
> But I support their freedom to
> choose their own lifestyle, and would fight alongside them to the death to
> defend their freedom in this respect. Just accept that if someone doesn't
> agree with the way you live, you can't tell them they HAVE to like and
> support your choice.
I agree completely.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Andrew J. Brehm
> Guedo Sarragucci wrote:
>
> > Of course, the very idea of a gay gene is ridiculous. It *could* be a
> > common mutation, but the fact that homosexuals cannot [for obvious reasons]
> > reproduce negates the possibility of it being an acquired genetic trait.
>
> That is faulty logic if the gene is recessive, and if possessing part of the
> sequence carries some evolutionary benefit. For instance, carrying two genes
> for sickle cell is fatal, but carrying only one gene for sickle cell causes
> some resistance to malaria.
http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/sickle.html
> > But I support their freedom to
> > choose their own lifestyle, and would fight alongside them to the death to
> > defend their freedom in this respect. Just accept that if someone doesn't
> > agree with the way you live, you can't tell them they HAVE to like and
> > support your choice.
>
> I agree completely.
Just want to add that I would _not_ fight alongside them to the death to
defend their freedom in this respect because I am not allowed to do
anything to the death for health reasons. :-)
Jackson Harvey
> > That is faulty logic if the gene is recessive, and if possessing part of the
> > sequence carries some evolutionary benefit. For instance, carrying two genes
> > for sickle cell is fatal, but carrying only one gene for sickle cell causes
> > some resistance to malaria.
>
> http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/sickle.html
Quite a good description, and it points out an error in my explanation. The gene
for sickle cell is co-dominant, and not passive, but the logic is the same: one
gene for the condition is helpful in some environments, while two genes for the
condition is fatal.
> Just want to add that I would _not_ fight alongside them to the death to
> defend their freedom in this respect because I am not allowed to do
> anything to the death for health reasons. :-)
I suppose you have a point, but life is a sexually transmitted disease that is
always fatal, so why worry about losing it?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> > > That is faulty logic if the gene is recessive, and if possessing part
> > > of the sequence carries some evolutionary benefit. For instance,
> > > carrying two genes for sickle cell is fatal, but carrying only one
> > > gene for sickle cell causes some resistance to malaria.
> >
> > http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/sickle.html
>
> Quite a good description, and it points out an error in my explanation.
> The gene for sickle cell is co-dominant, and not passive, but the logic is
> the same: one gene for the condition is helpful in some environments,
> while two genes for the condition is fatal.
Yepp.
(I was not so much out for the error, I only gave the link for the
purpose of information.)
> > Just want to add that I would _not_ fight alongside them to the death to
> > defend their freedom in this respect because I am not allowed to do
> > anything to the death for health reasons. :-)
>
> I suppose you have a point, but life is a sexually transmitted disease
> that is always fatal, so why worry about losing it?
Are you trying to start a new free will vs determinism argument? :-)
beer+football
> > > Driving a car is unnatural. It doesn't automatically make it
> > > bad. And as for "biological defect", how does one determine
> > > whether a trait is a defect or not?
> >
> > Nearsightedness is a defect. It is best to be able to see clearly.
> > Homosexuality is a defect. It is best to be sexually attracted to the
> > opposite sex (procreation and all...).
>
> Who gets to decide that? With the supposed population problem (which is
very
> real in some countries) the natural occurrence of homosexuality would seem
to be
> a good thing.
Then I suppose the Black Death would be a good thing as well?
>
> > > Do you favor the fetus's life over that of the mother?
> >
> > If the fetus is not alive, then of course not. If the fetus is alive,
> > however, then they should be treated equally. Any mother who would kill
her
> > own child to save her skin is a miserable human being. A mother should
be
> > willing to die for her child, not vice versa.
>
> There is little question that the fetus is alive. Bacteria are alive, and
we
> happily kill them. The question is whether a fetus has rights, including
a
> right to life.
Of course. I should have said "a life" and not "alive".
beer+football
> >> however, then they should be treated equally. Any mother who would kill
her
> >> own child to save her skin is a miserable human being. A mother should
be
> >> willing to die for her child, not vice versa.
>
> You're overlooking something. She's not giving her life for the fetus
> - it's a question of whether the fetus dies or they BOTH die. The
> fetus can't survive the death of the mother until near the end of the
> second trimester at the very earliest.
If we are talking about a situation in which the child will die NO MATTER
WHAT, then the mother should be able to abort to save herself.
If, however, the child has a decent chance of living, and the mother has a
decent chance of living, but the mother's chances for survival are increased
by aborting her child, I would not look too kindly upon the mother if she
chose to abort (assuming this is in the third trimester or at least late in
the second trimester).
Chris Nelson
news:3A751C6F...@usa.net...
I think the founders might have re-worded that Amendment had
they foreseen teenage gang members with machine guns.
--
Chris Nelson
Over 400 failed doomsday prophecies!
http://www.chrisnelson.net
Jackson Harvey
> > Who gets to decide that? With the supposed population problem (which is
> very
> > real in some countries) the natural occurrence of homosexuality would seem
> to be
> > a good thing.
>
> Then I suppose the Black Death would be a good thing as well?
Only if one assumes that it is the same to have someone die horribly as it is to
have them never exist in the first place.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
John Shafto
> >
> > IT'S "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".
>
> I think the founders might have re-worded that Amendment had
> they foreseen teenage gang members with machine guns.
I think it was/is generally understood and accepted that criminals
sacrifice their rights by engaging in criminal activity. Automatic
weapons are already illegal.
Taking handguns, or the ever expanding definition of
"assault weapons", away from legal gun owners does not
solve that problem, it just empowers them further by removing
their fear of unexpected equal force resistance lurking everywhere.
If individual rights, such as the basic right of self defense, are
disposable
for an unproven "the greater good", what is next? Freedom of Speech?
Privacy?
Religion? (The majority in this country are Christian, and they think
everyone should be Christian, for their own good of
course)
Candy Bars? (high health insurance costs ya know. ;)
NM
say/believe? Strange how such an obviously successful system is
castigated and then compared to a demonstrably failed one.
NM
NM
---snipped---
> they foreseen teenage gang members with machine guns.
They CERTAINLY would have reworded it had they forseen how thier heavily
documented intent would be perverted by Statists wishing to disarm the
law abiding populace.
NM
*Alexander Hamilton: "The Constitution shall never be interpreted as to
authorize the government to prevent the people, who are peaceable
citizens, from carrying their own arms." Debating ratification of the
Bill of Rights before the New York legislature
* Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never
construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the
United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own
arms."
* Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding
deprived of the use of them."
* George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials."
* George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the
Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth.
A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We
need them every hour."
========
99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S.
are not used in a murder in any given year.
99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S.
are not used in any crime in a given year.
Now that really screams for gun control, doesn't it?
How about some CRIMINAL control?
**Neil Boortz
========
Guedo Sarragucci
its continued existence?
--
Try these, you get paid for receiving junk mail!
http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/671736
http://www.inboxcash.com/$10/referral.asp?id=510349
> > > > That is faulty logic if the gene is recessive, and if possessing
John Shafto
> Very well, but what advantage would the "homo gene" offer that would
support
> its continued existence?
Once heard a guy argue that the "reason" for the existence of
a gay gene would be "natural population control".
(Had to remind him who would be controlled if that were true :-)
--
Dulcius Ex Asperis
beer+football
> >probably don't want much, if any, religion in their children's schools,
so
> >the companies wouldn't make the schools religious. Basic capitalist
> >principle. Pretty sad that you can't comprehend it...
> >
>
> If more than 80% of people are relgious, why would they not want relgion
in the
> schools? I am thinking about the US.
More than 80% of people believe in a God or gods; that does not make them
"religious".
Most folks would not want their children indoctrinated into a specific
religion in their school. And for the minority that do : LET THEM. It's
still a free country, right?
> >WTF??? What's the weather like on your planet?
Snipping the context again...weak.
>
> If we let every moron be armed, that inculdes morons who think that
dissent is
> evil, and evil must be destroyed. That inculdes people who see conspiracy
> everywhere. Guns won't just be distributed to the good and mature, but
then
> again, the thing is that certain things corralate. Violent people want to
do
> violent things using violent means. Other folks have sense not to, and
they
> aren't the ones wanting to use violent means.
>
> >
> >One imagines you mean "corporate" warlords. One also imagines that you
did
> >LSD while watching the Sci-Fi Channel recently...
>
> I never do things like that, that's why I am not like you.
Good one! Did you learn that in school today from your intellectual peers?
> Read the Jungle,
> folks.
Fiction. And almost a century old. But a good read nonetheless...
> Also, work at a store.
I have.
Once you notice the stupid, and borderline
> crooked stuff they do, you'd stop having the idea that big buisness would
care
> anything about you if they could do whatever they wanted.
Again, you completely misunderstand the free market. I haven't the time to
bother explaining it to you again. You wouldn't get it anyway...
> Hana no Kaitou
> Pledged to the Way of the Wimp
More like "Pledged to the Way of the Statist Sheep".
beer+football
>
> Only if one assumes that it is the same to have someone die horribly as it
is to
> have them never exist in the first place.
Or perhaps releasing something into the air that causes worldwide
miscarriages in most pregnancies?
beer+football
> religious belief,
You must have missed the part in the post you are responding to which shows
how a non-religious person can reasonably view at least SOME abortions as
nothing more than infanticide. How strange for someone to respond to a post
they seemingly didn't bother to read...
> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ISSUE COMMON LAW!
Well, they shouldn't, but they sometimes do. See federal drug laws...
Such
> laws are dictated by the states;
They should be, but they sometimes aren't. See medical marijuana laws that
are over-ridden by federal drug laws.
what should be the debate is whether the
> first amendment's forbidding of the establishment of a religion should
> forbid them from banning abortion.
Circular argument. And not even a very good one.
DarkAngel
NM wrote:
> Isn't amazing what jealousy of success will drive people to
> say/believe?
What jealousy? Those of us from other countries saw just how 'successful' your little
electoral system really is, when one takes office while he does not even have half of
voters, let alone half of the country's population, supporting him.
> Strange how such an obviously successful system is
> castigated and then compared to a demonstrably failed one.
If you speak of statist communism, then yes it is demonstrably failed, like all other
statist systems. Including representative democracy.
DarkAngel
Fred Stone wrote:
> DarkAngel wrote:
>
> > Fred Stone wrote:
> >
> > > PMJI, we Americans have a revolution every four years. It's called an
> > > election.
> >
> > Oh please. Representative democracy is a reactionary institution, not
> > revolutionary. A lot of petty bourgeois posturing, and whoever wins is always a
> > representative of the power elite anyway.
>
> I thought Marxist rhetoric went out when the Wall fell.
Bakuninist actually. Marx was an authoritarian elitist who took the revolution back
at least a few centuries with his State socialism b.s.
> > Not that I care who won. Gore, Bush or Nader... or Browne for that
> > matter. All a bunch of elitists who want power over the people. There isn't one
> > government worthy of existence.
>
> Perhaps you could point out a viable, functioning anarchy somewhere in the world
> so that we could have some standard of comparison?
You realize of course that prior to the 18th century this could have been an
argument from a monarchist about democracy? (Not that there ever was a true
democracy. Only republican forms of government).
Not to be undaunted though, we can point out to plenty of subsocieties who live
under anarchist principles. The Zapatistas for example, also the CNT during the
Spanish Civil War.
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
> > DarkAngel wrote:
> >
> > > Fred Stone wrote:
> > >
> > > > PMJI, we Americans have a revolution every four years. It's called an
> > > > election.
> > >
> > > Oh please. Representative democracy is a reactionary institution, not
> > > revolutionary. A lot of petty bourgeois posturing, and whoever wins is always a
> > > representative of the power elite anyway.
> >
> > I thought Marxist rhetoric went out when the Wall fell.
>
> Bakuninist actually. Marx was an authoritarian elitist who took the revolution back
> at least a few centuries with his State socialism b.s.
OK. I'm not familiar with Bakunin's writings.
> > > Not that I care who won. Gore, Bush or Nader... or Browne for that
> > > matter. All a bunch of elitists who want power over the people. There isn't one
> > > government worthy of existence.
> >
> > Perhaps you could point out a viable, functioning anarchy somewhere in the world
> > so that we could have some standard of comparison?
>
> You realize of course that prior to the 18th century this could have been an
> argument from a monarchist about democracy? (Not that there ever was a true
> democracy. Only republican forms of government).
The Athenian democracy was well known, and formed one basis of the US
Founders' discussion. They deliberately set up the system to avoid the *mob*
effect. Also the Roman republic was *very* well known to the Founders.
> Not to be undaunted though, we can point out to plenty of subsocieties who live
> under anarchist principles. The Zapatistas for example, also the CNT during the
> Spanish Civil War.
Aren't these fairly marginal groups, united by common opposition to a larger
society? Anarchy has no internal defenses when factions arise and
seek to dominate the system by force. What little I know of the Spanish Civil War would
tend to indicate that factionalism was rampant.
--
Fred Stone
Arturo Magidin
DarkAngel <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[.snip.]
>Not to be undaunted though, we can point out to plenty of subsocieties who live
>under anarchist principles. The Zapatistas for example, also the CNT during the
>Spanish Civil War.
Hmmm... The Zapatistas aren't anarchists. Right now, officially, they
are fighting so that tribal councils and tribal rules can hold sway
for disputes among indigenous peoples; and in a traditional populist
move (at least in Mexico) they support the 'ejido', which is
cooperative ownership of land by various individual farmers. An ejido,
however, is not an anarchist subsociety, but rather akin to a kibbutz
(i.e., more communist/socialist).
Moreover, the Zapatistas themselves operate through the personal
leadership of Marcos and other outspoken individuals outside the
ranks. Although the decisions are supposed to be taken in "assemblies"
collectively, they do not describe themselves, nor can they reasonably
be considered to be, anarchists; nor are their supposed procedures
based on 'anarchist principles.'
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
John Shafto
>
> OK. I'm not familiar with Bakunin's writings.
He was a communist who had delusions of abolishing the
state after a communist revolution. Basically, the Proletariat
(workers) take over in a revolution, then since everyone is
so happy and wonderful after getting rid of the greedy capitalists
(never mind that humans are the greedy ones, not just capitalists)
they can abolish the govt completely, and live in a wonderful
stateless utopia.
They tried it once after a revolution in Spain. It lasted about
two weeks if I remember correctly.
--
Dulcius Ex Asperis
Guedo Sarragucci
the "good of the whole". The beings who sacrafice themselves don't get
their genetic code carried on.
--
Try these, you get paid for receiving junk mail!
http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/671736
http://www.inboxcash.com/$10/referral.asp?id=510349
> > Very well, but what advantage would the "homo gene" offer that would
John Shafto
> Logically, genes only get carried on if they offer _self_-interest, not
for
> the "good of the whole". The beings who sacrafice themselves don't get
> their genetic code carried on.
Yup.
Which is why I .....
> > (Had to remind him who would be controlled if that were true :-)
Guedo Sarragucci
shows
> how a non-religious person can reasonably view at least SOME abortions as
> nothing more than infanticide. How strange for someone to respond to a
post
> they seemingly didn't bother to read...
wrong!!!
But it IS a question of belief, and the government MAY NOT tell you what to
believe.
> > THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ISSUE COMMON LAW!
> Well, they shouldn't, but they sometimes do. See federal drug laws...
By the boundries of the Constitution, which is what the Libertarian Party is
all about, [notice the name of the newsgroup] forbid them from dictating
common law.
> Such
> > laws are dictated by the states;
> They should be, but they sometimes aren't. See medical marijuana laws that
> are over-ridden by federal drug laws.
ditto
> what should be the debate is whether the
> > first amendment's forbidding of the establishment of a religion should
> > forbid them from banning abortion.
> Circular argument. And not even a very good one.
??what/how!???
It's plain and simple, what don't you understand?
Q:Is a zygote a human being?
A:Differs depending on your religious beliefs.
Notice also that murder is not a federal crime, state laws are what forbid
it.
Jackson Harvey
Sure, if you feel that an unwanted abortion is the same as a child that was
never conceived. I don't happen to think so.
Let me ask you this: Do you think people should have as many children as
possible? If not, why are you implying that a homosexual not having children is
a bad thing?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
> Very well, but what advantage would the "homo gene" offer that would support
> its continued existence?
It would be very difficult to guess. It took a long time to figure out the
advantage in some environments of one gene for sickle cell anemia.
There are many recessive genes that are always fatal to a person that has two
copies of them, yet they are still part of the gene pool. Thus it is faulty to
argue that homosexuality could not be genetic.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Kronius
> > You're overlooking something. She's not giving her life for the
> > fetus - it's a question of whether the fetus dies or they BOTH
> > die. The fetus can't survive the death of the mother until near
> > the end of the second trimester at the very earliest.
>
> If we are talking about a situation in which the child will die NO
> MATTER WHAT, then the mother should be able to abort to save herself.
Of course.
> If, however, the child has a decent chance of living, and the mother
> has a decent chance of living, but the mother's chances for survival
> are increased by aborting her child, I would not look too kindly upon
> the mother if she chose to abort (assuming this is in the third
> trimester or at least late in the second trimester).
If someone is comming at me with a knife, and I have a gun, I could
survive by wrestling the guy to the ground and knocking him unconcious
with the butt of the gun. However, I could significantly increase my
chances of survival by shooting the assailant outright.
I'd shoot every time.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Shafto
>
> > If, however, the child has a decent chance of living, and the mother
> > has a decent chance of living, but the mother's chances for survival
> > are increased by aborting her child, I would not look too kindly upon
> > the mother if she chose to abort (assuming this is in the third
> > trimester or at least late in the second trimester).
>
> If someone is comming at me with a knife, and I have a gun, I could
> survive by wrestling the guy to the ground and knocking him unconcious
> with the butt of the gun. However, I could significantly increase my
> chances of survival by shooting the assailant outright.
>
> I'd shoot every time.
What's this, the "maternal self defense against attacking fetus" argument?
Robert Hutchinson
>
> NM wrote:
>
> > IT'S "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".
>
> I think the founders might have re-worded that Amendment had
> they foreseen teenage gang members with machine guns.
I think the Founders would've first tried scrapping the ridiculous
ideas that led to gun-toting teens, like, say, federal education and
the drug war. Cause and effect, you know.
Robert Hutchinson
Elf Sternberg
>We won't argue what you propose as it is a false premise. Rights are
>inherent and unalienable. They are only abridged by others/government.
Is "the right to murder" a right that's inherent and
unalienable, only to be abridged by government? The definition of
"right" by your calculation is one that is effectively meaningless; a
person with all his rights would live in an anarchy.
>The U.S. Constitution enumerates existent rights as a guide so that
>others/government will not abridge them. It doesn't claim the rights
>so enumerated are the only rights either. See the 9th and 10th
>ammendments. You can work for change all you want. The age of the
>Constitution is irrelevant to the conversation. Correctness has no
>expiration date. Demand as you will. The processes for achieving your
>demands are existant within that 200+ year old document.
And they also exist outside that 200 year old document. Face
it, the Constitution, as useful as it is, is nothing more than an
organizing document for the way a state should run. In fact, the
Constitution itself enumerates very few rights, and never mentions a
"Creator" at all; those are in that document of revolution, the
Declaration of Independence. The power of the Constitution is listed,
rightly and properly, in its first three words: "We The People."
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
beer+football
> Let me ask you this: Do you think people should have as many children as
> possible?
It's up to the individuals involved.
If not, why are you implying that a homosexual not having children is
> a bad thing?
I didn't say or suggest or imply that it was a "bad" thing. Just a defect or
an abnormality, like nearsightedness.
beer+football
> If someone is comming at me with a knife, and I have a gun, I could
> survive by wrestling the guy to the ground and knocking him unconcious
> with the butt of the gun. However, I could significantly increase my
> chances of survival by shooting the assailant outright.
>
> I'd shoot every time.
I would too. But an innocent unborn child is not an armed assailant....
beer+football
> A:Differs depending on your religious beliefs.
Nope. Opinions differ depending on how many facts an individual has
available and how he/she perceives those facts.
Lots of people think abortion is murder because their
Pastor/Reverend/Priest/whatever tells them it is. Lots of people think it's
murder because they have looked at the facts and have made up their minds on
the basis of those facts.
Lots of people think abortion is a woman's "right" because the mainstream
media presents it as such. Lots of people think it should be legal because
they've looked at the facts and don't believe that an unborn child is a
"life".
Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
Now, if the USSC strikes down Roe v. Wade, then individual states will get
to decide whether or not the keep abortion legal, and if so, under what
circumstances. The Congress might step in and write Federal laws which will
supercede the state laws. If the majority of the members of Congress think
abortion is murder, then abortion will become illegal. You might not like
that. I might not like that. But that will be the law of the land unless it
is changed.
One rather lame pro-abortion argument is : "Well, if you think it's murder,
then you don't have one, bet let me do what I want to do!" Imagine if this
were applied to a slightly different scenario : "If you think drowning
newborn children in the swimming pool is murder, then you don't do it, but
let me do what I want to do!"
There will always be a debate about when life begins. But think about this :
If pro-abortion folks are right and life does not begin until birth, then
the worst thing about an anti-abortion agenda becoming law of the land is
that women are forced to carry a child to term. But if anti-abortion folks
are right and life begins at conception, then the worst thing about a
pro-abortion agenda REMAINING law of the land is the continued wholesale
slaughter of the innocent...
beer+football
> > Isn't amazing what jealousy of success will drive people to
> > say/believe?
>
> What jealousy? Those of us from other countries saw just how 'successful'
your little
> electoral system really is,
It is very successful. It's lasted longer than any European system. It was
an amazingly close election, yet there were no coup attempts. Almost the
whole country has accepted the result.
> when one takes office while he does not even have half of
> voters, let alone half of the country's population, supporting him.
What about some European nations with their "coalition governments"? Two
fairly large parties (but neither with anywhere near 50% of the vote total)
come together in order to achieve a plurality.
beer+football
<sarcasm on>
Ah, those wonderful folks...
<sarcasm off>
beer+football
> state after a communist revolution. Basically, the Proletariat
> (workers) take over in a revolution, then since everyone is
> so happy and wonderful after getting rid of the greedy capitalists
> (never mind that humans are the greedy ones, not just capitalists)
> they can abolish the govt completely, and live in a wonderful
> stateless utopia.
>
> They tried it once after a revolution in Spain. It lasted about
> two weeks if I remember correctly.
Hmm. I'm surprised it lasted that long. I would have given them 35, 45
minutes, tops.
Cecil
news:Otsq1o4iAHA.270@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > Q:Is a zygote a human being?
> > A:Differs depending on your religious beliefs.
>
> Nope. Opinions differ depending on how many facts an individual has
> available and how he/she perceives those facts.
>
> Lots of people think abortion is murder because their
> Pastor/Reverend/Priest/whatever tells them it is. Lots of people think
it's
> murder because they have looked at the facts and have made up their minds
on
> the basis of those facts.
>
> Lots of people think abortion is a woman's "right" because the mainstream
> media presents it as such. Lots of people think it should be legal because
> they've looked at the facts and don't believe that an unborn child is a
> "life".
Whether it's a "life" is irrelevant. Human beings have autonomy
over their own bodies. We are not owned by the state. Your body
is your property, to do with as you will. If you wish to poison it by
drinking excessive amounts of alcohol or if you wish to chop your
arm off, the decision is yours and yours alone, the state should
have nothing to do with it.
If someone has something growing inside of them and they
want it out, then it comes out. End of story. It doesn't matter if
it's a tumor or a fetus.
Jackson Harvey
> If not, why are you implying that a homosexual not having children is
> > a bad thing?
>
> I didn't say or suggest or imply that it was a "bad" thing. Just a defect or
> an abnormality, like nearsightedness.
The word defect implies that something is bad. It is an abnormality, I suppose,
as the "average" person is not homosexual. Genius is also an abnormality.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
John Shafto
> NM <> writes:
> >
> >We won't argue what you propose as it is a false premise. Rights are
> >inherent and unalienable. They are only abridged by others/government.
>
> Is "the right to murder" a right that's inherent and
> unalienable, only to be abridged by government? The definition of
> "right" by your calculation is one that is effectively meaningless; a
> person with all his rights would live in an anarchy.
What philosophy gives people a "right to murder"?
You can't just make stuff up.
> >The U.S. Constitution enumerates existent rights as a guide so that
> >others/government will not abridge them. It doesn't claim the rights
> >so enumerated are the only rights either. See the 9th and 10th
> >ammendments. You can work for change all you want. The age of the
> >Constitution is irrelevant to the conversation. Correctness has no
> >expiration date. Demand as you will. The processes for achieving your
> >demands are existant within that 200+ year old document.
>
> And they also exist outside that 200 year old document. Face
> it, the Constitution, as useful as it is, is nothing more than an
> organizing document for the way a state should run. In fact, the
> Constitution itself enumerates very few rights, and never mentions a
> "Creator" at all; those are in that document of revolution, the
> Declaration of Independence. The power of the Constitution is listed,
> rightly and properly, in its first three words: "We The People."
Yes, "We the people" are in charge here, but the wisdom in the constitution
is it's protection from the "tyranny of the majority" who might be swayed by
political winds. The 2/3 and 3/4 requirements, as well as the electoral
college,
make a small majority insufficient to get many big things done. That is so
that
the minorities also have some power, and it works great. It protects
individual liberty, and it promotes stability in our system.
John Shafto
>
> Whether it's a "life" is irrelevant. Human beings have autonomy
> over their own bodies. We are not owned by the state. Your body
> is your property, to do with as you will. If you wish to poison it by
> drinking excessive amounts of alcohol or if you wish to chop your
> arm off, the decision is yours and yours alone, the state should
> have nothing to do with it.
>
> If someone has something growing inside of them and they
> want it out, then it comes out. End of story. It doesn't matter if
> it's a tumor or a fetus.
Yes it does, that is most often the debate. A tumor is not viable
outside of the body. At some point, a child is. That is the point
at which I think should be accepted as the compromise, and it
would stop all this stupid bickering over abortion. It amazes me
how much money and effort is being thrown at this argument
here in the US.
Kronius
If it's birth threatens the life of the mother, what's the difference?
Justin Toxicated
Some dude writes...
>It doesn't matter if
>> it's a tumor or a fetus.
>
>Yes it does, that is most often the debate. A tumor is not viable
>outside of the body
Neither is a Fetus.......
. At some point, a child is.
Bah.....too many damn unwanted children infesting this country.......Yeah,
viable.....Viable car jackers,crack heads, Whores, and Raider
fans........ABORT them all..
NM
system in history where *murder* was ever (or is) considered a "right"?
Just because you're a sheep who thinks government or documents *BESTOW*
rights, doesn't mean that has EVER been the case. Do keep trying.
NM
NM
---snipped---
> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
So you knowingly "choose" to accept a biologic fallacy eh? How
interesting.
> Now, if the USSC strikes down Roe v. Wade, then individual states will get
> to decide whether or not the keep abortion legal,
Constitutionally, as it should be.
NM
Cecil
> > "Cecil" wrote:
> > Whether it's a "life" is irrelevant. Human beings have autonomy
> > over their own bodies. We are not owned by the state. Your body
> > is your property, to do with as you will. If you wish to poison it by
> > drinking excessive amounts of alcohol or if you wish to chop your
> > arm off, the decision is yours and yours alone, the state should
> > have nothing to do with it.
> >
> > If someone has something growing inside of them and they
> > want it out, then it comes out. End of story. It doesn't matter if
> > it's a tumor or a fetus.
>
> Yes it does, that is most often the debate.
> A tumor is not viable outside of the body.
>At some point, a child is.
So what? Whether or not the thing can live
outside the body is completely irrelevant.
Say that a very large women has a five year
old child inside of her, living off of her. If she
has the five year old child removed from her,
the child will die. It would be a violation of her
rights to force the woman against her will to
keep it inside of her so that the child might
continue to live. It doesn't matter that the kid
will die if removed.
If she wants it out, it comes out. Period.
The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
person to act.
> That is the point at which I think should be
> accepted as the compromise,
No. There should be no compromise whatsoever.
If a thief points a gun at me and wants all my money,
you come along and say "Just compromise and give him
half of your money. It's only fair."
No thanks.
>and it would stop all this stupid bickering over abortion.
> It amazes me how much money and effort is being
> thrown at this argument here in the US.
The bickering would end if people would stop
thinking that our physical bodies are property of
the state, like you apparently do.
Robert Hutchinson
> Say that a very large women has a five year
> old child inside of her, living off of her. If she
> has the five year old child removed from her,
> the child will die. It would be a violation of her
> rights to force the woman against her will to
> keep it inside of her so that the child might
> continue to live. It doesn't matter that the kid
> will die if removed.
>
> If she wants it out, it comes out. Period.
>
> The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
> its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
> person to act.
You have completely ignored the question of what action the woman took
that might have led to the above situation. A right cannot compel another
person to act, but an *action* can. I am not compelled to give you a
dollar ... unless I make a contract to do so.
You have also pretended that one person's rights can be paramount to
another's. Say that a five-year-old is living inside a woman ... it would
be a violation of the child's rights to force the child, against his will,
to cease living inside her ... these are the kinds of arguments that result
when one attempts to treat the rights of two people as the rights of one
person.
With your argument, a woman would have a legal means of killing those she
disliked ... just manage to get the person to inhabit her body, they become
a "parasite", and whammo. An uplifting sentiment, to be sure.
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
> Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
Law is not intelligent people. When intelligent people cannot agree, any
sane law should err on the side of protecting as many rights as possible.
If I know someone is standing behind one of five doors, should I have the
right to pick a door at random and start shooting? Is the possible violation
of my rights to shoot a gun at nothing more important than the possible
violation of another's rights not to be shot?
Robert Hutchinson
NM
> >Yes it does, that is most often the debate. A tumor is not viable
> >outside of the body
>
> Neither is a Fetus.......
Ahh, but it is. Ever heard of premature births? Be more specific and
be more credible thereby.
NM
Can we abort you? In reference to your sig.
Noah Simoneaux
>beer+football wrote:
>---snipped---
>> Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
>> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
>
>So you knowingly "choose" to accept a biologic fallacy eh? How
>interesting.
Looks more like accepting the fact that something is subjective.
(snip)
Noah Simoneaux
Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
Eastman's Personnel Director's Law
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Noah Simoneaux
>beer+football wrote:
>
>> Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
>> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
>
>Law is not intelligent people. When intelligent people cannot agree, any
>sane law should err on the side of protecting as many rights as possible.
It should? Says who?
>
>If I know someone is standing behind one of five doors, should I have the
>right to pick a door at random and start shooting? Is the possible violation
>of my rights to shoot a gun at nothing more important than the possible
>violation of another's rights not to be shot?
You like that word "should"? Maybe you SHOULD just pay more attention to what
you SHOULD do and let others worry about what they SHOULD do.
John Shafto
>
> So what? Whether or not the thing can live
> outside the body is completely irrelevant.
Maybe to you it is.....
It is clear to me that your argument is very simple.
> Say that a very large women has a five year
> old child inside of her, living off of her. If she
> has the five year old child removed from her,
> the child will die. It would be a violation of her
> rights to force the woman against her will to
> keep it inside of her so that the child might
> continue to live. It doesn't matter that the kid
> will die if removed.
>
> If she wants it out, it comes out. Period.
Okay, I did say the compromise for legal abortions should
be that time when the child is viable outside of the mother.
> The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
> its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
> person to act.
A child is not a foreign parasite chief.
> > That is the point at which I think should be
> > accepted as the compromise,
>
> No. There should be no compromise whatsoever.
See, it is militant attitudes like yours that cause eternal
bickering. Have fun.
> If a thief points a gun at me and wants all my money,
> you come along and say "Just compromise and give him
> half of your money. It's only fair."
When did I say that? Your argument doesn't follow.
An innocent child is not a thief, and it could be argued
that a mother or doctor who takes a viable life is stealing
something. You know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
> The bickering would end if people would stop
> thinking that our physical bodies are property of
> the state, like you apparently do.
Think again Saddam, and take your holy war somewhere
else. I support abortion, but I am also open minded enough
to understand the argument of taking of innocent life. So,
I think a compromise is in order, but then that would take
all the fun out of it now wouldn't it?
Noah Simoneaux
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> wrote:
(snip)
>> The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
>> its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
>> person to act.
>
>A child is not a foreign parasite chief.
You need to practice your reading skills. Try reading that again and look for
the word foreign.
(snip)
>See, it is militant attitudes like yours that cause eternal
>bickering. Have fun.
Ah, one of those one-sided fights, eh?
(snip)
>Think again Saddam, and take your holy war somewhere
>else. I support abortion, but I am also open minded enough
>to understand the argument of taking of innocent life. So,
>I think a compromise is in order, but then that would take
>all the fun out of it now wouldn't it?
When you are ready to compromise YOUR right to do what you wish with YOUR body
I'll support your right to tell someone else what they can do with their body.
Sound good?
Guedo Sarragucci
> > A:Differs depending on your religious beliefs.
> Nope. Opinions differ depending on how many facts an individual has
> available and how he/she perceives those facts.
This is religious belief. Thanks for backing up my point.
> Lots of people think abortion is murder because their
> Pastor/Reverend/Priest/whatever tells them it is. Lots of people think
it's
> murder because they have looked at the facts and have made up their minds
on
> the basis of those facts.
This is religion still, even if it isn't Christianity. Most atheistic and
some theistic religions get knowledge from schollarly learning, for every
one who comes to the conclusion that abortion is wrong their is at LEAST one
who concludes otherwise.
> Lots of people think it should be legal because
> they've looked at the facts and don't believe that an unborn child is a
> "life".
Yes! Exactly!
> Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
I respect that choice, and would never try to tell you that you had to
believe or excercise otherwise.
> Now, if the USSC strikes down Roe v. Wade, then individual states will get
> to decide whether or not the keep abortion legal, and if so, under what
What I am arguing is that the proposal to ban abortions is entirely based in
the BELIEF is whether an unborn fetus is the same as a developed human
being. Banning it dictates that the belief that it is the same is correct,
the first Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion forbids
any governing body in America from establishing any belief as mandated.
> circumstances. The Congress might step in and write Federal laws which
will
> supercede the state laws. If the majority of the members of Congress think
> abortion is murder, then abortion will become illegal. You might not like
> that. I might not like that. But that will be the law of the land unless
it
> is changed.
That's what politics and political newsgroups are all about, getting
policies changed.
> One rather lame pro-abortion argument is : "Well, if you think it's
murder,
> then you don't have one, bet let me do what I want to do!" Imagine if this
> were applied to a slightly different scenario : "If you think drowning
> newborn children in the swimming pool is murder, then you don't do it, but
> let me do what I want to do!"
Or "If you think eating meat is murder, don't do it, but don't tell me I
can't!"
You anti-abortion fanatics oversimplify the issue, I used to be one of you
myself until I took many biology and sociology courses.
Just because it's made out of human tissues doesn't make it intelligent; a
full-grown cow is more intelligent than a mid-term and [arguably] later-term
fetus.
> There will always be a debate about when life begins. But think about this
:
> If pro-abortion folks are right and life does not begin until birth, then
> the worst thing about an anti-abortion agenda becoming law of the land is
> that women are forced to carry a child to term.
1) very very expensive
2) compromises her health
3) disables her form carrying out normal activities for long time
4) much pain and suffering
5) must nurse baby for a while too
6) unwanted child!!! If they don't want it, they're NOT going to take care
of it. Who is?! Just arrest it now and save time.
--
Try these, you get paid for receiving junk mail!
http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/671736
http://www.inboxcash.com/$10/referral.asp?id=510349
John Shafto
>
> >> The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
> >> its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
> >> person to act.
> >
> >A child is not a foreign parasite chief.
>
> You need to practice your reading skills. Try reading that again and look
for
> the word foreign.
Okay, let me put it this way then, I believe strongly that actions
have consequences. There is a voluntary action by the mother
that causes the "parasite", so consequentially, she (and the
father) have a responsibility to sacrifice some of their "rights"
if they let the pregnancy develop past the point of viability.
I haven't had this debate much, particularly not from this side,
but I think viability is generally considered 6 months without
the machinery to support the child.
No rights without responsibilities, no responsibilities without rights.
I also think the word parasite devalues human life, so it is offensive.
Would you also support extermination of unwanted human parasites
in society, or just the ones that are still contained within their
mothers?
> >Think again Saddam, and take your holy war somewhere
> >else. I support abortion, but I am also open minded enough
> >to understand the argument of taking of innocent life. So,
> >I think a compromise is in order, but then that would take
> >all the fun out of it now wouldn't it?
>
> When you are ready to compromise YOUR right to do what you
> wish with YOUR body I'll support your right to tell someone else
> what they can do with their body.
> Sound good?
I don't know if it "sounds good", but I do know that most of us are
already willing to compromise many of our "rights" to protect the
"rights" of other human beings (and therefore ourselves really).
I have the right to the "pursuit of happiness", and it might make
me happier if I killed my neighbor, and took his property, would
that be okay?
I don't want to tell anyone anything, I just think the people on the
two sides of this ought to compromise, or blow each others heads
off and get it over with anyway.
Guedo Sarragucci
then
> > the worst thing about an anti-abortion agenda becoming law of the land
is
> > that women are forced to carry a child to term.
If I'm wrong, you just loose a little money, but if I'm right, the world
would be destroyed. So you should therefore give me the money, because the
destruction of the world is much worse than you loosing 100$.
Noah Simoneaux
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> wrote:
(snip)
>> When you are ready to compromise YOUR right to do what you
>> wish with YOUR body I'll support your right to tell someone else
>> what they can do with their body.
>> Sound good?
>
>I don't know if it "sounds good", but I do know that most of us are
>already willing to compromise many of our "rights" to protect the
>"rights" of other human beings (and therefore ourselves really).
Try again. I didn't say YOU would get to choose which rights you'd give up in
order to tell other people what to do with their bodies. Since you are willing
to compromise many of your "rights" who are you going to allow to tell you what
to do with YOUR body?
>
>I have the right to the "pursuit of happiness", and it might make
>me happier if I killed my neighbor, and took his property, would
>that be okay?
Your right to the pursuit of happiness is not absolute, like all rights.
>
>I don't want to tell anyone anything, I just think the people on the
>two sides of this ought to compromise, or blow each others heads
>off and get it over with anyway.
You have a right to your opinion, but what you think there means you feel you
should have the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. Whether
you see it that way or not, the "compromise" you're talking about is them
allowing you to control their bodies.
Cecil
> > Cecil wrote:
>
> > Say that a very large women has a five year
> > old child inside of her, living off of her. If she
> > has the five year old child removed from her,
> > the child will die. It would be a violation of her
> > rights to force the woman against her will to
> > keep it inside of her so that the child might
> > continue to live. It doesn't matter that the kid
> > will die if removed.
> >
> > If she wants it out, it comes out. Period.
> >
> > The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
> > its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
> > person to act.
>
> You have completely ignored the question of what
> action the woman took that might have led to the
> above situation.
>A right cannot compel another person to act, but an
> *action* can. I am not compelled to give you a
> dollar ... unless I make a contract to do so.
You're going to have to clarify what you mean here.
What "actions" and what "contracts" are you
talking about?
> You have also pretended that one person's rights
> can be paramount to another's.
I did no such thing.
>Say that a five-year-old is living inside a woman ...
Okay, if it is living inside of a woman it is a parasite.
It cannot live inside of her without being a parasite.
>it would be a violation of the child's rights to
> force the child, against his will, to cease living
> inside her ...
No, it would not be a violation of the child's rights.
It has no right to be there. It can stay there by
her permission only. Her body is her property.
When she want's it out, it comes out.
>these are the kinds of arguments that result
> when one attempts to treat the rights of two
> people as the rights of one
> person.
>
> With your argument, a woman would have a legal
> means of killing those she disliked ... just manage
> to get the person to inhabit her body, they become
> a "parasite", and whammo.
No, not killing. Removing.
Cecil
> "Cecil" <nom...@all.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > So what? Whether or not the thing can live
> > outside the body is completely irrelevant.
>
> Maybe to you it is.....
> It is clear to me that your argument is very simple.
>
> > Say that a very large women has a five year
> > old child inside of her, living off of her. If she
> > has the five year old child removed from her,
> > the child will die. It would be a violation of her
> > rights to force the woman against her will to
> > keep it inside of her so that the child might
> > continue to live. It doesn't matter that the kid
> > will die if removed.
> >
> > If she wants it out, it comes out. Period.
>
> Okay, I did say the compromise for legal abortions should
> be that time when the child is viable outside of the mother.
You're missing the point. Whether or not the
fetus/child can live on it's own doesn't matter.
Let's say that my son has leukemia and that
he is dying. He can only live if I give him a bone
marrow transplant. Even though me and my wife
brought him into the world, perhaps even gave him
a genetic disposition to the disease, he cannot by
right force me to donate my bone marrow. The fact
that he will die without it is irrelevant.
Let me add something here. I don't like talking
about these kinds of issues in such cold-hearted
way. But I have no choice. There are lots of
people like yourself who wish to use the force
of law in order to abrogate the rights of certain
women.
> > The parasite (child) cannot claim a right against
> > its host (woman). A right cannot compel another
> > person to act.
>
> A child is not a foreign parasite chief.
The mother/fetus relationship is parasitical. The
term is not derogatory, it is a statement of fact.
> > > That is the point at which I think should be
> > > accepted as the compromise,
> >
> > No. There should be no compromise whatsoever.
>
> See, it is militant attitudes like yours that cause eternal
> bickering. Have fun.
I assure you there's nothing fun about your wishing
to punish women for some made-up "crime".
[...]
> > The bickering would end if people would stop
> > thinking that our physical bodies are property of
> > the state, like you apparently do.
>
> Think again Saddam, and take your holy war somewhere
> else. I support abortion, but I am also open minded enough
> to understand the argument of taking of innocent life. So,
> I think a compromise is in order,
You remind me of the gun grabbers, who are
constantly asking gun owners to "compromise"
their rights.
You don't compromise when it comes to your
rights, my friend.
John Shafto
>
> >> When you are ready to compromise YOUR right to do what you
> >> wish with YOUR body I'll support your right to tell someone else
> >> what they can do with their body.
> >> Sound good?
> >
> >I don't know if it "sounds good", but I do know that most of us are
> >already willing to compromise many of our "rights" to protect the
> >"rights" of other human beings (and therefore ourselves really).
>
> Try again. I didn't say YOU would get to choose which rights you'd
> give up in order to tell other people what to do with their bodies.
You asked *me* if it "sounded good", I answered. You can quit
this weak attempt to make is sound as "I" want to tell people what
they can do with their bodies.
> Since you are willing to compromise many of your "rights" who are
> you going to allow to tell you what to do with YOUR body?
Surely you are familiar with drug laws, sin taxes, seat belt laws,
ad nauseum. Not that I agree with them all, but *we*, as a society,
are apparently willing to give up freedoms to protect the freedoms
of everyone equally.
If my neighbor decides to start target shooting at my house, I hope
he loses his "right to bear arms". Once again --
no rights without responsibilities, no responsibilities without rights.
> >I have the right to the "pursuit of happiness", and it might make
> >me happier if I killed my neighbor, and took his property, would
> >that be okay?
>
> Your right to the pursuit of happiness is not absolute, like all rights.
You mean like the right to do whatever you want with your body,
particularly when it infringes on the most fundamental right of
another human being?
> >I don't want to tell anyone anything, I just think the people on the
> >two sides of this ought to compromise, or blow each others heads
> >off and get it over with anyway.
>
> You have a right to your opinion, but what you think there means you feel
you
> should have the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
Thanks....how many times are you going to point the finger at me as the
evil stealer of people's personal rights? It is really not a very good
argument.
> Whether you see it that way or not, the "compromise" you're talking
> about is them allowing you to control their bodies.
No, it is not about *me* wanting to take away anyone's rights, it is
about society as a whole deciding that viable unborn children are
human lives, and therefore have rights just as the rest of us do.
Robert Hutchinson
> Robert Hutchinson wrote:
> >beer+football wrote:
> >
> >> Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
> >> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
> >
> >Law is not intelligent people. When intelligent people cannot agree, any
> >sane law should err on the side of protecting as many rights as possible.
>
> It should? Says who?
Says very few, sadly.
> >If I know someone is standing behind one of five doors, should I have the
> >right to pick a door at random and start shooting? Is the possible violation
> >of my rights to shoot a gun at nothing more important than the possible
> >violation of another's rights not to be shot?
>
> You like that word "should"? Maybe you SHOULD just pay more attention to what
> you SHOULD do and let others worry about what they SHOULD do.
I'd like to hear your alternative for good law. Flipping a coin? Polling an
audience? Trial runs? (Notice I left out "should" in my last three sentences,
which made them sentence fragments. English is strange that way.)
Robert Hutchinson
NM
Baaaaah!
NM
NM
Biology isn't "religion" or "religious belief" as much as you, to hold
your position, may wish it to be.
NM
NM
---snipped---
> >> Intelligent people can disagree about when life begins. Conception? Birth?
> >> Somewhere in between? I choose the last one.
> >
> >So you knowingly "choose" to accept a biologic fallacy eh? How
> >interesting.
>
> Looks more like accepting the fact that something is subjective.
Only for someone unfamiliar with biology and human development. Both,
heavily documented and measurable disciplines. Of course it could
simply be you don't know what "subjective" means.
> Noah Simoneaux
> Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
NM
And people who subscribe to this are cynical and frightened people in my
opinion. That's subjective.
John Shafto
>
> You're missing the point. Whether or not the
> fetus/child can live on it's own doesn't matter.
Only if you dismiss the, and I want to be clear here,
*viable* child's right to life.
> Let's say that my son has leukemia and that
> he is dying. He can only live if I give him a bone
> marrow transplant. Even though me and my wife
> brought him into the world, perhaps even gave him
> a genetic disposition to the disease, he cannot by
> right force me to donate my bone marrow. The fact
> that he will die without it is irrelevant.
Yes it is. How does this relate to abortion?
Are you saying that the right that is being infringed is
forcing the mother to give birth as opposed to her
having an abortion procedure (which is also quite
messy and expensive after the second trimester,
and not much different then giving birth really)?
> Let me add something here. I don't like talking
> about these kinds of issues in such cold-hearted
> way. But I have no choice. There are lots of
> people like yourself who wish to use the force
> of law in order to abrogate the rights of certain
> women.
You want to use the force of law to allow women
to abrogate the rights of certain children to live.
This is fun, I like taking the other side for once. :-)
> I assure you there's nothing fun about your wishing
> to punish women for some made-up "crime".
Buh? You mean the made up crime of murder?
> You remind me of the gun grabbers, who are
> constantly asking gun owners to "compromise"
> their rights.
>
> You don't compromise when it comes to your
> rights, my friend.
When I start shooting at my neighbors, then I will have
sacrificed my right to bear arms, probably forever, not just
during a medical procedure. That is how is how it should be.
If I would murder, or steal, I would sacrifice
my right to free speech, privacy, etc.
No rights without responsibilities.....that is the compromise that
we all make to live in a free and just society, even a libertarian
one.
Chris Nelson
news:3A77756F...@hotmail.com...
> Chris Nelson wrote:
> >
> > NM wrote:
> >
> > > IT'S "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".
> >
> > I think the founders might have re-worded that Amendment
had
> > they foreseen teenage gang members with machine guns.
>
> I think the Founders would've first tried scrapping the
ridiculous
> ideas that led to gun-toting teens, like, say, federal
education and
> the drug war. Cause and effect, you know.
Scrapping public education? Sorry, but making education a
privilege for the wealthy only causes greater poverty, and
poverty is the primary cause of crime.
--
Chris Nelson
Over 400 failed doomsday prophecies!
http://www.chrisnelson.net
Al Klein
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Cecil" <nom...@all.com> wrote
>> If someone has something growing inside of them and they
>> want it out, then it comes out. End of story. It doesn't matter if
>> it's a tumor or a fetus.
>Yes it does, that is most often the debate. A tumor is not viable
>outside of the body. At some point, a child is.
Then you should have no problem with aborting a non-viable fetus.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Elf Sternberg
"John Shafto" <jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> writes:
>"Elf Sternberg" <e...@halcyon.com> wrote
>> Is "the right to murder" a right that's inherent and
>> unalienable, only to be abridged by government? The definition of
>> "right" by your calculation is one that is effectively meaningless; a
>> person with all his rights would live in an anarchy.
>What philosophy gives people a "right to murder"?
>You can't just make stuff up.
Why not? There are political philosophies that enshrine the
right to murder, most notably anarchism, which while you may laugh, is a
complete and comprehensive political philisophy. But the point is that
the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not one
enumerated in many political philosophies and is certainly not granted
by Biblical tradition. Any scholar of the Talmud, for example, can tell
you that the Israeli tribes did not recognize any "right to life,"
especially not for outsiders and they practiced slavery without
apology. And Matthew 26:11 is certainly an indictment that "the pursuit
of happiness" is available to anyone.
>Yes, "We the people" are in charge here, but the wisdom in the
>constitution is it's protection from the "tyranny of the majority" who
>might be swayed by political winds. The 2/3 and 3/4 requirements, as
>well as the electoral college, make a small majority insufficient to
>get many big things done. That is so that the minorities also have some
>power, and it works great. It protects individual liberty, and it
>promotes stability in our system.
Yes, -it works great-. That's the point. It's the result of
brilliant men looking at the failures of the past and crafting a system
that works great. But don't mistake its success for providence.
Remember that the rights in the Constitution were hard-won, as all
rights are.
Human beings inevitably form both economic and power
structures, and Jefferson and Adams both understood the utility of a
distributed system such as the one we eventually ended up with. Our
current government is a strictly utilitarian, strictly human-crafted
one. The history of the human species shows that "rights" are either
granted out of necessity or they are *taken* by groups that amass enough
power to make themselves heard. One need only look at the Civil Rights
movement of the 1950s and '60s, or the gay rights movement of today, to
see this dynamic in action.
Cecil
> > "Cecil" wrote:
> >
>
> > You're missing the point. Whether or not the
> > fetus/child can live on it's own doesn't matter.
>
> Only if you dismiss the, and I want to be clear here,
> *viable* child's right to life.
A right cannot compel another person to act.
How many times must I say that before you
finally accept it?
> > Let's say that my son has leukemia and that
> > he is dying. He can only live if I give him a bone
> > marrow transplant. Even though me and my wife
> > brought him into the world, perhaps even gave him
> > a genetic disposition to the disease, he cannot by
> > right force me to donate my bone marrow. The fact
> > that he will die without it is irrelevant.
>
> Yes it is. How does this relate to abortion?
My son has no right to my bone marrow even
though I am his parent and he will die without it.
A fetus has no right to the womb of a woman
even though she is it's parent and it will die without it.
Human beings have autonomy over their
own physical bodies, whether you like it or not.
On a side note, I recall that you are an ardent
supporter of the War on Drugs. This would help to
explain your belief that human beings are property of
the state. If you support imprisoning people for the
"crime" of ingesting "controlled substances", it's perfectly
logical to extend government regulation up and into
a woman's vagina.
> Are you saying that the right that is being infringed is
> forcing the mother to give birth as opposed to her
> having an abortion procedure (which is also quite
> messy and expensive after the second trimester,
> and not much different then giving birth really)?
>
> > Let me add something here. I don't like talking
> > about these kinds of issues in such cold-hearted
> > way. But I have no choice. There are lots of
> > people like yourself who wish to use the force
> > of law in order to abrogate the rights of certain
> > women.
>
> You want to use the force of law to allow women
> to abrogate the rights of certain children to live.
Uh, no. I haven't suggested making any laws whatsoever.
> This is fun, I like taking the other side for once. :-)
Whatever turns you on...
> > I assure you there's nothing fun about your wishing
> > to punish women for some made-up "crime".
>
> Buh? You mean the made up crime of murder?
Good grief. You consider the removal of a parasite
from one's own body to be murder?
> > You remind me of the gun grabbers, who are
> > constantly asking gun owners to "compromise"
> > their rights.
> >
> > You don't compromise when it comes to your
> > rights, my friend.
>
> When I start shooting at my neighbors, then I will have
> sacrificed my right to bear arms, probably forever, not just
> during a medical procedure. That is how is how it should be.
> If I would murder, or steal, I would sacrifice
> my right to free speech, privacy, etc.
>
> No rights without responsibilities.....
I notice that you keep repeating this idiotic sentence
in your posts, with the hope that with enough iteration it
will somehow become true.
According to your "logic":
The fetus has the right to life.
There are no rights without responsibilities.
Therefore, the fetus has responsibilities.
Please enumerate the responsibilities of a fetus.
Robert Hutchinson
> Robert Hutchinson wrote ...
>
> > I think the Founders would've first tried scrapping the
> > ridiculous ideas that led to gun-toting teens, like, say, federal
> > education and the drug war. Cause and effect, you know.
>
> Scrapping public education? Sorry, but making education a
> privilege for the wealthy only causes greater poverty, and
> poverty is the primary cause of crime.
First, I said *federal* education, not public education. (Not that I
*wouldn't* suggest getting rid of all public education.)
Second, you presume education is expensive. I guess that explains
home-schooling.
Robert Hutchinson
Guedo Sarragucci
liberal arguments about "the rights of the fetus" too.
> Whether it's a "life" is irrelevant. Human beings have autonomy
> over their own bodies. We are not owned by the state. Your body
> is your property, to do with as you will. If you wish to poison it by
> drinking excessive amounts of alcohol or if you wish to chop your
> arm off, the decision is yours and yours alone, the state should
> have nothing to do with it.
> If someone has something growing inside of them and they
> want it out, then it comes out. End of story. It doesn't matter if
> it's a tumor or a fetus.
Jackson Harvey
> Second, you presume education is expensive. I guess that explains
> home-schooling.
Well, to be fair, home schooling is very expensive, as it requires a
full-time adult. The cost is the opportunity cost of that adult not
working.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Robert Hutchinson
> Robert Hutchinson wrote:
> > You have completely ignored the question of what
> > action the woman took that might have led to the
> > above situation.
> > A right cannot compel another person to act, but an
> > *action* can. I am not compelled to give you a
> > dollar ... unless I make a contract to do so.
>
> You're going to have to clarify what you mean here.
>
> What "actions" and what "contracts" are you
> talking about?
The actions that tend to lead to pregnancy. The contracts resulting
from such informed actions. If you step in front of a moving car, your
injury or death is not the driver's fault. If you choose to take actions
that can lead to pregnancy, that pregnancy is not the "parasite"'s fault.
> > You have also pretended that one person's rights can be paramount
> > to another's.
>
> I did no such thing.
>
> >Say that a five-year-old is living inside a woman ...
>
> Okay, if it is living inside of a woman it is a parasite.
>
> It cannot live inside of her without being a parasite.
First, does the child's parasititude suddenly remove its rights as a human?
Second, using a five-year-old instead of a fetus in your example removes an
important factor: the factors involved in growth and development.
> > it would be a violation of the child's rights to
> > force the child, against his will, to cease living
> > inside her ...
>
> No, it would not be a violation of the child's rights.
>
> It has no right to be there. It can stay there by
> her permission only. Her body is her property.
> When she want's it out, it comes out.
This, again, assumes the *child* chose to be there, and that the woman
had no part in the decision. If I invite someone for a plane ride, do I
have the right to reassert my property rights at 30,000 feet, and throw
them from the plane?
> > these are the kinds of arguments that result
> > when one attempts to treat the rights of two
> > people as the rights of one
> > person.
> >
> > With your argument, a woman would have a legal
> > means of killing those she disliked ... just manage
> > to get the person to inhabit her body, they become
> > a "parasite", and whammo.
>
> No, not killing. Removing.
I didn't kill the guy on the respirator. I just removed all those tubes that
belong to me.
Robert Hutchinson
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<ser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The actions that tend to lead to pregnancy. The contracts resulting
>from such informed actions. If you step in front of a moving car, your
>injury or death is not the driver's fault. If you choose to take actions
>that can lead to pregnancy, that pregnancy is not the "parasite"'s fault.
Fault has notihng to do with it. Regardless of whethr there is any
fault attached, it doesn't have the ight t stay if she doesn't want it
to.
>First, does the child's parasititude suddenly remove its rights as a human?
There is no right as a human to use someone else's body when they
don't want you to. Even if you need it in order to survive.
>> > it would be a violation of the child's rights to
>> > force the child, against his will, to cease living
>> > inside her ...
>>
>> No, it would not be a violation of the child's rights.
>>
>> It has no right to be there. It can stay there by
>> her permission only. Her body is her property.
>> When she want's it out, it comes out.
>
>This, again, assumes the *child* chose to be there, and that the woman
>had no part in the decision. If I invite someone for a plane ride, do I
>have the right to reassert my property rights at 30,000 feet, and throw
>them from the plane?
You have the right to reassert your property rights and make
arrangements for their removal. These arrangements include landing,
since that is possible. If a fetus can be taken from the mother alive,
then induced labor and birth should replace abortion when she decides
she wants it removed, but she may still have it removed.
>> > With your argument, a woman would have a legal
>> > means of killing those she disliked ... just manage
>> > to get the person to inhabit her body, they become
>> > a "parasite", and whammo.
>>
>> No, not killing. Removing.
>
>I didn't kill the guy on the respirator. I just removed all those tubes that
>belong to me.
Hospitalization and treatment involve contracts for care. If you have
signed a contract to let your tubes be used for this purpose, you
cannot change your mind and remove them. If you have signed no such
contract, then you may.
>Robert Hutchinson
-Naomi
John Shafto
>
> > > You're missing the point. Whether or not the
> > > fetus/child can live on it's own doesn't matter.
> >
> > Only if you dismiss the, and I want to be clear here,
> > *viable* child's right to life.
>
> A right cannot compel another person to act.
I think the right is causing the mother not to act,
namely, not kill a viable child. Just as my right to
life does not allow others to kill me.
> How many times must I say that before you
> finally accept it?
Why can't you argue in a civil manner, do you
think you are going to muscle your way into a
better argument? It don't work that way,
I am not your little brother.
> My son has no right to my bone marrow even
> though I am his parent and he will die without it.
>
> A fetus has no right to the womb of a woman
> even though she is it's parent and it will die without it.
Fine, I have allowed for this in my position by saying
that abortion should be legal up until the point of
viability outside of the womb. Are you thinking of
someone else you were arguing with?
> Human beings have autonomy over their
> own physical bodies, whether you like it or not.
>
> On a side note, I recall that you are an ardent
> supporter of the War on Drugs. This would help to
> explain your belief that human beings are property of
> the state. If you support imprisoning people for the
> "crime" of ingesting "controlled substances", it's perfectly
> logical to extend government regulation up and into
> a woman's vagina.
This is just more of your arrogance and confusion....
Where exactly did I say that I supported the "war on drugs"?
Where did I say that I do not support human autonomy over
our own physical bodies? I may or may not be a terrible
stealer of rights, but that is really beside the point.
> > Buh? You mean the made up crime of murder?
>
> Good grief. You consider the removal of a parasite
> from one's own body to be murder?
Only the parasites generally known as humans, and
caused by the host herself.
> > No rights without responsibilities.....
>
> I notice that you keep repeating this idiotic sentence
> in your posts, with the hope that with enough iteration it
> will somehow become true.
>
> According to your "logic":
>
> The fetus has the right to life.
> There are no rights without responsibilities.
> Therefore, the fetus has responsibilities.
>
> Please enumerate the responsibilities of a fetus.
You answer my argument with another question.
So let me do the same...
I notice that you completely ignore the responsibilities
of the parent of the fetus. That is why I keep repeating
that. I had hoped you might have a valid argument as to
why a mother is devoid of responsibility from her actions
that caused the creation and maturity of a human being
inside of her.
Guess I have to leave that to someone who is not a
pissy arrogant debator in this subject.
John Shafto
>
> >Yes it does, that is most often the debate. A tumor is not viable
> >outside of the body. At some point, a child is.
>
> Then you should have no problem with aborting a non-viable fetus.
That's right, I don't.
--
"Crisis is the rallying cry of tyrants"
-- James Madison
DarkAngel
> > > Isn't amazing what jealousy of success will drive people to
> > > say/believe?
> >
> > What jealousy? Those of us from other countries saw just how 'successful'
> your little
> > electoral system really is,
>
> It is very successful. It's lasted longer than any European system. It was
> an amazingly close election, yet there were no coup attempts. Almost the
> whole country has accepted the result.
>
> > when one takes office while he does not even have half of
> > voters, let alone half of the country's population, supporting him.
>
> What about some European nations with their "coalition governments"? Two
> fairly large parties (but neither with anywhere near 50% of the vote total)
> come together in order to achieve a plurality.
It leads to concessions and compromises, which is something that I would
consider a good thing in most cases.
--
a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
"We can break these chains, we make them up ourselves"
- False Prophets, "Baghdad Stomp"
The Anarchism FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
DarkAngel
> > He was a communist who had delusions of abolishing the
> > state after a communist revolution. Basically, the Proletariat
> > (workers) take over in a revolution, then since everyone is
> > so happy and wonderful after getting rid of the greedy capitalists
> > (never mind that humans are the greedy ones, not just capitalists)
> > they can abolish the govt completely, and live in a wonderful
> > stateless utopia.
> >
> > They tried it once after a revolution in Spain. It lasted about
> > two weeks if I remember correctly.
>
> Hmm. I'm surprised it lasted that long. I would have given them 35, 45
> minutes, tops.
The civil war lasted 3 years, and the anarchist communes lasted at least
a third of that time.
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>First, does the child's parasititude suddenly remove its rights as a human?
Can't remove what it never had.
>Second, using a five-year-old instead of a fetus in your example removes an
>important factor: the factors involved in growth and development.
You're trying to remove an important factor, too. The factor of a person making
their own decisions about what to do with their bodies.
>
>> > it would be a violation of the child's rights to
>> > force the child, against his will, to cease living
>> > inside her ...
>>
>> No, it would not be a violation of the child's rights.
>>
>> It has no right to be there. It can stay there by
>> her permission only. Her body is her property.
>> When she want's it out, it comes out.
(snip)
>This, again, assumes the *child* chose to be there, and that the woman
>had no part in the decision.
It has nothing to do with the embryo choosing anything. It's the woman's choice,
not yours, not mine, and not the embryo.
If I invite someone for a plane ride, do I
>have the right to reassert my property rights at 30,000 feet, and throw
>them from the plane?
Seriously flawed analogy.
(snip)
>I didn't kill the guy on the respirator. I just removed all those tubes that
>belong to me.
Do you normally rent out respirator tubes?
Noah Simoneaux
Education is the process of moving from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty.- Utvich's Observation
John Shafto
>
> If a fetus can be taken from the mother alive, then induced labor
> and birth should replace abortion when she decides
> she wants it removed, but she may still have it removed.
I think this is becoming my position. I have always been
100% pro-choice, but my wife argues that the fetus
should also have some right-to-life if it is viable outside of
the mother. She supports banning third trimester abortions,
I can not see a good enough reason to disagree with her.
> Hospitalization and treatment involve contracts for care. If you have
> signed a contract to let your tubes be used for this purpose, you
> cannot change your mind and remove them.
Can it not be argued that there is some "contract" that exists
when a mother concieves and holds a child until it is a viable
human being? Don't we generally accept other such "contracts"
in life (like raising children) without an actual written document?
> If you have signed no such contract, then you may.
I don't think that would hold up in court. Even if a person
stole something from you, and you took it from them by
force (without other arrangements first) knowing it would
kill them if you did, you would most likely be liable, and
probably criminal.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> wrote:
>"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <nri...@concentric.net> wrote
>
>> If a fetus can be taken from the mother alive, then induced labor
>> and birth should replace abortion when she decides
>> she wants it removed, but she may still have it removed.
>
>I think this is becoming my position. I have always been
>100% pro-choice, but my wife argues that the fetus
>should also have some right-to-life if it is viable outside of
>the mother. She supports banning third trimester abortions,
>I can not see a good enough reason to disagree with her.
So long as it remains legal and available for a woman to have labor
induced and deliver a third-trimester child at any time of her
choosing, and so long as abortion is still permitted instead of
delivery in the rare cses in which the safety of the mother is
materially at greater risk through delivery than late-term abortion,
I'm fine with this. The key points for me are that (a) she may get it
taken out of her body any time she wants, whether that removal
necessitates its death or not, and (b) that in a case whre her own
life is at risk she be permitted to do whatever necessary to safeguard
it.
>> Hospitalization and treatment involve contracts for care. If you have
>> signed a contract to let your tubes be used for this purpose, you
>> cannot change your mind and remove them.
>
>Can it not be argued that there is some "contract" that exists
>when a mother concieves and holds a child until it is a viable
>human being?
That is not what the term contract means. A contract *must* be
explicit to be enforceable under law.
>Don't we generally accept other such "contracts"
>in life (like raising children) without an actual written document?
Nope. The obligation to see that one's children are cared for isn't a
contract, and it is terminable at will so long as one does so via
proper procedure. Different states have different rules as to what
constitutes proper procedure, but they *all* have quick, easy ways for
a parent who does not wish to raise their own child anymore to
surrender parental rights and void themselves of the responsibility.
We do allow oral contracts, so the written down part isn't necessary,
but an offer, acceptance and consideration is. Every time.
>> If you have signed no such contract, then you may.
>
>I don't think that would hold up in court. Even if a person
>stole something from you, and you took it from them by
>force (without other arrangements first) knowing it would
>kill them if you did, you would most likely be liable, and
>probably criminal.
You probably would, because the government considers itself to have
all kinds of rights to force people's behavior, but I thought we were
talking about what ought to be by a libertarian standard, not what we
have now.
-Naomi
John Shafto
>
> >I think this is becoming my position. I have always been
> >100% pro-choice, but my wife argues that the fetus
> >should also have some right-to-life if it is viable outside of
> >the mother. She supports banning third trimester abortions,
> >I can not see a good enough reason to disagree with her.
>
> So long as it remains legal and available for a woman to have labor
> induced and deliver a third-trimester child at any time of her
> choosing, and so long as abortion is still permitted instead of
> delivery in the rare cses in which the safety of the mother is
> materially at greater risk through delivery than late-term abortion,
> I'm fine with this. The key points for me are that (a) she may get it
> taken out of her body any time she wants, whether that removal
> necessitates its death or not, and (b) that in a case whre her own
> life is at risk she be permitted to do whatever necessary to safeguard
> it.
That seems very fair and reasonable with as much respect
to the rights of all parties involved as can be expected.
Since I have been personally accused of being the stealer of rights
on both sides of this issue, I think I will write up the bill, pass the
law, and tell everyone who is still unhappy to send their complaints
to the circlular file in the complaint dept. <kidding> :-)
> >I don't think that would hold up in court. Even if a person
> >stole something from you, and you took it from them by
> >force (without other arrangements first) knowing it would
> >kill them if you did, you would most likely be liable, and
> >probably criminal.
>
> You probably would, because the government considers itself to have
> all kinds of rights to force people's behavior, but I thought we were
> talking about what ought to be by a libertarian standard, not what we
> have now.
Fair enough.
Guedo Sarragucci
> your position, may wish it to be.
I didn't say biology is a religion. Read more carefully. Biology produces
facts; it does not make judgements. Biology has revealed that an unborn
fetus does not exhibit the qualities of an intelligent lifeform. Whether
you take that as meaning that it is therefore less "wrong" to kill a fetus
than say a cow, or if you believe that since it is made up of primate cells
it is just as wrong to kill it as another being, is a question of religious
belief. If someone believes that it is murder, that's their business. They
don't have to have one, they don't have to support the process in any way.
But don't tell people who believe that it isn't wrong they can't kill their
own fetus because "it upsets you".
> Guedo Sarragucci wrote:
> > > > Q:Is a zygote a human being?
> > > > A:Differs depending on your religious beliefs.
> > > Nope. Opinions differ depending on how many facts an individual has
> > > available and how he/she perceives those facts.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This is religious belief. Thanks for backing up my point.
> > You anti-abortion fanatics oversimplify the issue, I used to be one of
you
> > myself until I took many biology and sociology courses.
> > Just because it's made out of human tissues doesn't make it intelligent;
a
> > full-grown cow is more intelligent than a mid-term and [arguably]
later-term
> > fetus.
Thomas Storm
(in message <qXpe6.67$X5.75@pluto>):
>> Biology isn't "religion" or "religious belief" as much as you, to hold
>> your position, may wish it to be.
>
> I didn't say biology is a religion. Read more carefully. Biology produces
> facts; it does not make judgements. Biology has revealed that an unborn
> fetus does not exhibit the qualities of an intelligent lifeform. Whether
> you take that as meaning that it is therefore less "wrong" to kill a fetus
> than say a cow, or if you believe that since it is made up of primate cells
> it is just as wrong to kill it as another being, is a question of religious
> belief. If someone believes that it is murder, that's their business. They
> don't have to have one, they don't have to support the process in any way.
> But don't tell people who believe that it isn't wrong they can't kill their
> own fetus because "it upsets you".
I have to concur with Guedo... Wouldn't stoping or condemning someone for
participating in something common with their beliefs be nothing more than
violating their own right to choose? By stopping them, you're infringing on
their civil liberties while they were not even thinking about you. There is
no unwritten law anywhere that says everyone has to be comfortable with
everyone else beliefs or decisions. Everyone has the right to believe their
own things and do their own things without always having someone bitching and
moaning about it. As long as they're not violating someone else's rights,
they have no business interfering.
Chris Nelson
> Chris Nelson wrote:
> > Robert Hutchinson wrote ...
> >
> > > I think the Founders would've first tried scrapping
the
> > > ridiculous ideas that led to gun-toting teens, like,
say, federal
> > > education and the drug war. Cause and effect, you
know.
> >
> > Scrapping public education? Sorry, but making education
a
> > privilege for the wealthy only causes greater poverty,
and
> > poverty is the primary cause of crime.
>
> First, I said *federal* education, not public education.
(Not that I
> *wouldn't* suggest getting rid of all public education.)
One of the weaknesses of the American education system is
that there is too much local control. In practically every
other country, education is regulated by the central
government. In almost every other country, education is
superior to our own. Central government control can enforce
strict national standards of excellence uniformly all over
the country. But in the US, each district can be as lax and
disparate and quirky as it wishes. Local school districts
can deemphasize the teaching of evolution, sacrifice Art and
Latin in favor of more sports, and teach Ebonics as a second
language.
Al Klein
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote
>> >Yes it does, that is most often the debate. A tumor is not viable
>> >outside of the body. At some point, a child is.
>> Then you should have no problem with aborting a non-viable fetus.
>That's right, I don't.
That's a pro-choice viewpoint. Most of us are disgusted with the use
of abortion as a means of after-the-fact birth control, or sex
determination.
Thomas Storm
> of abortion as a means of after-the-fact birth control, or sex
> determination.
>
numbers, there are many, many more "pro-choice" people than there are
"pro-life." I myself am pro-choice, but yet I don't condone abortion as a
way of correcting a mistake. And what exactly do you mean by "sex
determination?" That's a very vague term.