The Bible Says That Women Are Men's Property And Hence Have No Right To Abortions, Contraceptives, To Work Outside The Home Or To Vote

[The Libertarian]

These are inalienable rights given to men by God, not by the
government, so the government has no right to contravene
them.

God says that Women are Men's property and therefore have no
right or say over what is done with their bodies.

Obey the word of God.

Read and obey the Bible.

Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described
as creating man,
both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and
female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as
implying equality between the two genders.
But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed
only a man: "...the
LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God
marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20)
looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God
created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has
historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role
for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the
word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew
word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old
Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a
superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his
authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times,
one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by
naming it.
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King
James Version (KJV),
New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version
(RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve:
"...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The
Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of
their descendents are would have the same power imbalance
between spouses.
A man could marry (literally "become the master of the
woman") as often as he
desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known
polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took
multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur:
2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives
of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash,
Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham
to engage in sexual
intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I
pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain
children by her." Presumably this was done without the
consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of
the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at
her owner's command.
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house,
and asked that he
bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them.
This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the
visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot
offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is
recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not
known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and
do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this
despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man,
worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's
daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists
appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of
the low status of the young women.
Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous
concubines. These were
sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As
implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer
needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this
bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall
not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two
concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob:
1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1;
David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an
unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill
all Jewish boys at
birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the
kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to
the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a
son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then
she shall live." The girls, being considered less important,
were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair
of chapters in the
Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of
her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her
new husband:
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou
shalt not covet thy
neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his
ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important
to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and
female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The
tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house,
wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that
the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent
to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he
shall serve: and in
the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master
have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or
daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's,
and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted
to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no
indication that women were consulted during this type of
transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his
wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner.
Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on
this arrangement,
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a
maidservant, she shall not
go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his
daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is
automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave
remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22
deal with restitution
in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property.
Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a
virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the
woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer.
If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter
to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay
money to her father. The money would be in compensation for
the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would
be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are
fighting and one
hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because
of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and
must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her
husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child.
The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be
surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay
upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part
in the feasts of
unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times
in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the
priesthood, the
Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has
given birth to a
boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl,
the mother is unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived
seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven
days...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be
unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of having
a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is
twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having
sexual intercourse with
his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally
with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."
Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with
another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this
prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to
be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman,
the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to
visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not
commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather
against his male neighbor.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was
worth 5 shekels if
a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old
even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the
male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy
estimation shall be three shekels of silver."
Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants
over the age of one
month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the
house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a
month old and upward shalt thou number them." Females were
not considered worthy of being included.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that
women were forced to
perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an
affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water
mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He
proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to
drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her
abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no
similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an
affair with another woman.
In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance
that God has
stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his
daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his
daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate
is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If
he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male
relative. "...If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall
cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he
have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his
brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his
inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father
have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his
kinsman that is next to him of his family...."
Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding.
But a vow taken by a
woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living
in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is
married.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a
woman captive to marry
him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to
war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath
delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and
hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy
wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she
shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put
the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain
in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full
month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her
husband, and she shall be thy wife."
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when
she is married. If
she has had sexual relations while single in her father's
house, then she would be stoned to death. There were no
similar virginity requirements for men. "If any man take a
wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of
speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and
say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her
not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of
virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring
out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men
of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because
she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her
father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has
been raped must marry
her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the
rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is
not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and
they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto
the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be
his wife...."
Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a
divorce. This can only
be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: "When a man
hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that
she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house."
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she
would be required
to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a
"levirate" marriage. Their first-born son will later be
considered to be the son of the deceased husband. The man
could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a choice in
the matter. " If brethren dwell together, and one of them
die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry
without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in
unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty
of an husband's brother unto her."
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of
one of them grabs
the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off.
There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other
man. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife
of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the
hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and
taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her
hand..."
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19.
Some men in the city
wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house
offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine so
that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: "Behold, here
is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring
out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth
good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." The
man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded
to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only
learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the
morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly
considered expendable and of little value.

[trainguard]

I have put back the correct headers. People who play silly little
games like this will have their reward. Your karma is to have a pound
of pork sausages shoved up your backside while a string quartet plays
selections from Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons'......

Hopefully, the following re-posting will appear in the correct
groups....

On Feb 23, 3:14 am, The Libertarian <negr...@excite.com> wrote:


> These are inalienable rights given to men by God, not by the
> government, so the government has no right to contravene
> them.

> God says that Women are Men's property and therefore have no
> right or say over what is done with their bodies.


> Obey the word of God.


> Read and obey the Bible.

Christians do not 'obey' the Bible. That would be setting it up as a
'graven image' in our lives. You are supposed to use scriptures as a
source of inspiration, to enable you to seek God through the person
of
Christ. That is the starting point for a relationship. The aim is an
'in-dwelling' of the spirit' in other words, you develop a conscience
that becomes your guide in life....

> Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
> In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described
> as creating man,
> both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in
> his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and
> female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as
> implying equality between the two genders.

Actually, it is a parable about the nature of man, and the problem of
free will if you have the choice to do good or evil....how do you
make
the right decision?

> But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed
> only a man: "...the
> LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
> into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
> soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God
> marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20)
> looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God
> created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has
> historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role
> for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the
> word can mean a companion of equal status. "...

Exactly so....

>the Hebrew
> word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old
> Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a
> superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his
> authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called
> Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times,
> one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by
> naming it.

And I always thought that the point of this part of the parable was
to
explain the 'fall'...the nature of 'birth' or 'original'
sin....Christians valued the concept of the 'curse of Adam' because
it
itroduces the concept of Christ's redemptive sacrifice. But that
seems
to pass by religious nutters like yourself.

> Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King
> James Version (KJV),
> New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version
> (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve:
> "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
> over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The
> Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of
> their descendents are would have the same power imbalance
> between spouses.

As if most mainstream Christians could really give a shit....

(Old Testament bollocks deleted.)


And mainstream Christians realise that there are two Covenants, the
Old and the New...and that the New Testament replaces the Old.


"For there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female,
but
all are one in Christ...." That's what my Bible says.


You are either a very bad troll or a religious nutter. Which is it?


Dr. Barry Worthington




Reply Reply to author Forward







You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before
posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.



Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service -
Privacy Policy
©2012 Google

[Steve]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:06:59 -0800 (PST), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

> Your karma is to have a pound
>of pork sausages shoved up your backside while a string quartet plays
>selections from Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons'......

Worthington has these wild-eyed, homosexual fantasies...

[lsrlts]

On 2/23/2012 5:06 AM, trainguard wrote:
> Your karma is to have a pound
> of pork sausages shoved up your backside while a string quartet plays
> selections from Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons'......

You sir are a profoundly odd and disturbed person.

[Chris Diesel]

"trainguard" <barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote in message
news:5fcd2417-350f-44da...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

I have put back the correct headers. People who play silly little
games like this will have their reward. Your karma is to have a pound
of pork sausages shoved up your backside while a string quartet plays
selections from Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons'......

Hopefully, the following re-posting will appear in the correct
groups....

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
- Richard Dawkins.

Most intelligent people will take the science option.

[Barry]

And you are a complete waste of space....

Goodbye little troll......

Dr. Barry Worthington

[Barry]

On Feb 23, 4:37 pm, "Chris Diesel" <die...@no.real.address.com.au>
wrote:
> "trainguard" <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote in message

I fail to see the relevance of this citation to the posting....if you
cannot make relevant comments, you might as well not bother to
respond.

Dr. Barry Worthington

P.S. If you must make irrelevant quotes, here's one of my own. (From
the Daily Telegraph. which I wouldn't usually be seen dead reading.)

"The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford
University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the
role of religion in public life in Britain.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he
preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

.........................................................................................

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less
than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion,
interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins
answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s
most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his
beliefs."

[Steve]

"My interest is the swinging sub-culture"
-- Barry Worthington
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cea0c8e1abca656b?dmode=source&hl=en

[Steve]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:17:01 -0800 (PST), Barry
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>On Feb 23, 4:37 pm, "Chris Diesel" <die...@no.real.address.com.au>
>wrote:
>> "trainguard" <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5fcd2417-350f-44da...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> I have put back the correct headers. People who play silly little
>> games like this will have their reward. Your karma is to have a pound
>> of pork sausages shoved up your backside while a string quartet plays
>> selections from Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons'......
>>
>> Hopefully, the following re-posting will appear in the correct
>> groups....
>>
>> "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
>> - Richard Dawkins.
>>
>> Most intelligent people will take the science option.
>
>I fail to see the relevance of this citation to the posting....if you
>cannot make relevant comments, you might as well not bother to
>respond.

That's from Worthington who simply calls people names when he cannot
respond to them...

[lsrlts]

On 2/24/2012 1:06 AM, Barry wrote:
> On Feb 23, 4:11 pm, lsrlts<d...@g.nail> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 5:06 AM, trainguard wrote:
>>
>>> Your karma is to have a pound
>>> of pork sausages shoved up your backside while a string quartet plays
>>> selections from Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons'......
>>
>> You sir are a profoundly odd and disturbed person.
>
> And you are a complete waste of space....

You can utter that after your bizarre deli-sex fantasy?

Honestly, you're not at all right in the mental arena.

> Goodbye little troll......
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington

Make it a permanent departure, please...

[Tom Ography]

"lsrlts" <dd...@g.nail> is...

> a profoundly odd and disturbed person.

Shut the fuck up, spammyshitstain. You are irrelevant.

Only with the Internet can you conceal the sad truth that you're nothing
but a badly sewn sock puppet with Munchhausen syndrome and a chubby hand
up your cloaca.

Is there something about intelligent, mature debate that you simply
can't grasp, spammyshitstain?

Do you ever have anything of interest, or substance, to say?

You are a little dick bitch who feels like it is his civic duty as
a Usenet troll to place his nose firmly in the sphincters of those he
dislikes every time they post. They all own you, spammyshitstain.

'Shit happens'
---Traitorous spammyshitstain's reply to the fact that 34
Americans died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS
Liberty. Spammyshitstain is a gutless coward who has never served
his country in uniform, and hates anyone who has.

'There are a lot better places to be in life than here.'
--- spammyshitstain

'We tend to despise in others those flaws most evident in ourselves.'
--- "Jarbidge" (Spammyshitstain)

[First. Post]

You've posted the same bullshit under several different nyms over the
past few days.
Seems that you are the one that should be taking your line about
usenet trolling seriously before anyone else troll.

Into the kill file with you yet again dickless.

[trainguard]

On Feb 24, 5:56 pm, "Tom Ography" <c...@sc.an> wrote:
> "lsrlts" <d...@g.nail> is...

If you know who he really is, you would do us all a favour if you
revealed it, together with a list of all his posting names.... Then we
can avoid him.

Dr. Barry Worthington

[Tom Ography]

"trainguard" <barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote in message

news:af9a5b34-b73e-4201...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 24, 5:56 pm, "Tom Ography" <c...@sc.an> wrote:

> 'There are a lot better places to be in life than here.'
> --- spammyshitstain
>

> If you know who he really is, you would do us all a favour if you
> revealed it, together with a list of all his posting names.... Then we
> can avoid him.

It doesn't matter if you know who it is. Spammy needs to change nyms
a _lot_ in order to escape kill filters. Over the years, it's become
blindingly obvious, when a new "poster" nym shows up, that it's
spammy. You learn to recognize certain "tics." Your choices, in the
meantime, are to either ignore (and eventually killfile), or to
do what I do: post the same thing in response to spammy's crap,
repeatedly. Spammy has a history of doing this very same thing when
he goes into meltdown mode, so it's only fair that this form the bulk
of replies to his rigid, blind stupidity. C'mon, join in. S'fun!

[lsrlts]

The notion you'd avoid any form of discord or even criticize it is on
whole ludicrous.

Amongst trolls sir, your deli-sex entreaty was easily one of the most
crass and classless.

[trainguard]

"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Another shitbag this way comes....."

(Apologies to Bill Shakespeare)

"And he asked him 'what is thy name'? And he answered saying 'my
name is legion: for we are many'. And he besought him much that he
would not send them away out of the country. Now was there nigh unto
the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils
besought him, saying 'send us into the swine, that we may enter into
them.' And forthwith, Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits
went out and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down
a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand); and were
choked in the sea."

Dr. Barry Worthington




- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[lsrlts]

What precisely is that meant to convey?

That food sex is "legion"?

I don't think so...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the
has a right to abort a human life....


What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
for the Bible to make a similar one?


--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the

woman has a right to abort a human life....

What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than

for the Bible to make a similar one that women are property?

[trainguard]

On Feb 27, 7:18 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the
> has a right to abort a human life....
>
> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
> for the Bible to make a similar one?

Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
abortion.....

Dr. Barry Worthington

[Mr. K]

In article
<f0ed95f7-4433-4187...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

and;
The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but: it's followers;
Are Pro-War.
Are Pro-Torture.
Are Pro-Execution.
Are Pro-Money-lender.
Despise Human Rights.
Despise The Poor.
Despise Women.
And they are against Obama. maybe you noticed that.

in Truthout by Chris Mooney. "The Republican Brain" "Cons who think
themselves well informed and educated are also deeper in denial about
issues like global warming" The well informed con watches Fox so he
knows what to think on issues. He internalizes it and makes it a part of
his brain, so attacks on Fox are attacks on him. When asked about the
meanspiritedness and intolerance of the cons, he replies that they have
been deeply disappointed , jolted or kicked around and kind of liked the
idea of other people suffering
Google; Neo-Cons
--
Karma, What a concept!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/27/2012 3:44 AM, trainguard wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:18 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the

>> woman has a right to abort a human life....

>>
>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than

>> for the Bible to make a similar one about women being property of men?

>
> Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
> that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
> abortion.....
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
>

Perhaps they realized they can make the same kind of Biblical laws that
are in the Bible and get those idiot Liberals to like what just a few
years earlier they opposed.



Virtually the same law that makes a human life Property, and the
Liberals built their image saying they have always opposed this.


Yet the Liberals as we see, support the laws making human life into
property.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

So to love women we have to kill human life in the uterus to prove our
love? You are one sick puppy.

Pro Defense
Pro treat people humanely, and don't physically damage them
Pro punishment to fit the crime
Pro business
Pro human life in the uterus RIGHTS, make no human life into slaves
Pro push the poor to take care of themselves and get self respect
Pro women, respect them as women and NOT focus on keeping them as a
sexual receptacles for Liberals monogender gratification.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/27/2012 11:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:18:54 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the
>> has a right to abort a human life....
>

> True.

>
>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
>> for the Bible to make a similar one?
>

> 2 good reasons
>
> 1) the bible is religious and therefore exluded from afflicting law
>
> 2) The constittution is the ONLY arbiter of what the law is.
>


So you support making a human life property and even a female human life
in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property of a
man is evil?

Isn't that sexist and one sided? Are you sure this is what you wanted
to tell us that you believe?

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>
>Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>abortion.....
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington

Sure there is.

"Thou shalt not murder"

Simple enough to understand.

Gunner

--
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mr. K" <geor...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:georgeswk-3FD53...@news.toast.net...

> In article
> <f0ed95f7-4433-4187...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> trainguard <barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 7:18 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> > The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the
>> > has a right to abort a human life....
>> >
>> > What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
>> > for the Bible to make a similar one?
>>
>> Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>> that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>> abortion.....
>>
>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is
>> > NO
>> > moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.
>
> and;
> The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but: it's followers;
> Are Pro-War.

Except that the people we are at war with started it. THEY declared the war
against us, we would be fools to not respond to their declaration.


> Are Pro-Torture.
Really, somebody was tortured? Our people have their heads chopped off and
their bodies drug through the street on the bumper of a pickup truck, and
you are gonna say we tortured somebody because they got their picture taken
nude with a woman in the room? Seriously, is that the problem?


> Are Pro-Execution.
Damn right. An executed man does not repeat his offense. If you wanted the
process cleaned up so innocent men are not executed, I'd go along with that.
But the general idea of execution is not a bad idea. It is implemented
poorly, that's true. But poor implementation does not make the idea a bad
one.


> Are Pro-Money-lender.
Neither a borrower or lender be. Having said that, money is a commodity,
just like anything else. If I need money, I have to pay for it. If I have
money, then you should pay me to use it.


> Despise Human Rights.
Really? How?


> Despise The Poor.
Really? What's wrong with teaching a man to fish so he can feed himself,
instead of passing out fish so he becomes dependent on people passing things
out?


> Despise Women.
Despise women? Really? Since when?

> And they are against Obama. maybe you noticed that.

Against Obama? Yep. And proud of it. Obama is on track to be a worse
president than Jimmy Carter ever dreampt of being.

[Jeff Strickland]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:62onk7peofdca87h5...@4ax.com...
>
> "When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two
> tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not
> obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for
> it that his tellng them so; and I have no other authority for
> it than some historian telling me me so. "
>
> "The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them;
> they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualfied
> to be a law-giver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without
> having recourse to supernatural intervention."

Then WHY are liberals so obsessed with making sure the Ten Commandments to
not appear in the public sphere? If there is no divinity, then there is no
religion, and if there is no religion then there is nothing to separate from
the state, and if there is nothing to separate from the state, then why is
the separation of church and state the primary reason to not allow them in
the public sphere?

Seems you are opposed to religion, not in favor of separating it from the
state. That seems to be the argument you just made, given the citation you
provided.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/27/2012 2:57 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:47:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
>>>> for the Bible to make a similar one?
>>>
>>> 2 good reasons
>>>
>>> 1) the bible is religious and therefore exluded from afflicting law
>>>
>>> 2) The constittution is the ONLY arbiter of what the law is.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you support making a human life property and even a female human life
>> in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property of a
>> man is evil?
>

> "property" is your term. It's Called "begging the question fallacy"
> and isn't a legitimate argument form

NOPE... having the power to destroy something or someone is ownership.
A woman can kill her fetus so it is property, just as a slave owner
could do with his property as he saw fit. A woman would NOT be allowed
to kill her child if the child has RIGHTS to LIFE or any other RIGHTS.
Because killing it would violate the other RIGHTS. Obviously it is
property. NO RIGHTS and no free will.

> A fetus is protected by the rights of a citizen, the mother,

NOT all mothers are citizens, some are illegals...

> as given
> by the constitution. A fetus does NOT have separate rights because the
> law does not recognize it as a "citizen" or "person"

NOPE... a fetus is a separate human life with unique DNA(half isn't
even the mothers DNA), it is a separate person. It is Illegal for one
person to own another person. We call that slavery and the constitution
forbids it here in the USA.

If you want to support SLAVERY then so be it, but it is illegal as per
the 13th amendment. Slavery was ended the correct way with a
constitutional amendment. It was NOT a court creating RIGHTS and powers
unconstitutionally.


> The underlying goal of the winger religious nutjobs is to CHANGE the
> law to legally make a fetus, or assign a fetus "personhood"--which in
> effect would give it the same status as all citizens

It is already a person, the goal is to STOP YOU from violating the
RIGHTS that the child in the uterus already has and you are illegally
ignoring and abusing that child.


> Not in your lifetime will that ever happen. It is legally (almost)
> impossible to assign "personhood" status to a non-born fetus without
> massive legal problems--almost too numerous to mention.

It is Unconstitutional for the Federal government to assign person-hood,
they don't have the power, so you are correct but since they can not
assign it they also can't repeal it, the baby in the uterus has always
been a person, so there is nothing to assign.


It is already a person, the fact you ignore it doesn't change that. It
is a live human and you call it a blob but calling it a blob changed
nothing and we still see the heart beat and that it grows and and
matures inside as it does outside the uterus, that growth and maturing
never stops until death, hopefully at a ripe old age.

[trainguard]

On Feb 27, 4:54 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 3:44 AM, trainguard wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:18 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the
> >> woman has a right to abort a human life....
>
> >> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
> >> for the Bible to make a similar one about women being property of men?
>
> > Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
> > that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
> > abortion.....
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Perhaps they realized they can make the same kind of Biblical laws that
> are in the Bible and get those idiot Liberals to like what just a few
> years earlier they opposed.
>
> Virtually the same law that makes a human life Property, and the
> Liberals built their image saying they have always opposed this.
>
> Yet the Liberals as we see, support the laws making human life into
> property.

Come back to us when you can write something that is logical and
meaningful.....

Dr. Barry Worthington

[trainguard]

On Feb 27, 6:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>

> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
> >that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
> >abortion.....
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Sure there is.
>
> "Thou shalt not murder"
>
> Simple enough to understand.

You cannot 'murder' a form of 'life' that is not sentient.

Dr. Barry Worthington

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/27/2012 6:24 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:10:45 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So you support making a human life property and even a female human life
>>>> in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property of a
>>>> man is evil?
>>>
>>> "property" is your term. It's Called "begging the question fallacy"
>>> and isn't a legitimate argument form
>>
>> NOPE... having the power to destroy something or someone is ownership.
>

> Only in your fucked up mind. You did it again
>
> Defining something and then arguing as if it were true is "Begging the
> question" fallacy.
>
> A fetus is NOT considered property. YOU defined it---then argued as
> if it were true. Fallacy


I took your definition of a fetus as a NON human life blob that a woman
removes like cancer, she owns here cancer cells doesn't she... so you
then are making them the same by your own words.

All I did was use your own definition that the woman owns here body and
the blob that is invading her body.

>>
>>> A fetus is protected by the rights of a citizen, the mother,
>>
>> NOT all mothers are citizens, some are illegals...
>

> Persons in this nation are covered by the concept of "inalienable
> rights"---and legally that is extended to women--citizens or not.

>
>> a fetus is a separate human life with unique DNA(half isn't
>> even the mothers DNA),
>

> THat's not a legal concept---it's a medical/scientific issue having
> nothing to do with "rights"

you mean facts mean nothing?

>
>>> The underlying goal of the winger religious nutjobs is to CHANGE the
>>> law to legally make a fetus, or assign a fetus "personhood"--which in
>>> effect would give it the same status as all citizens
>>
>> It is already a person,
>

> No, it's "Called" a person by you winger nuts.

By the constitution... I simply read the constitution.


> Legally, and COnstitutionaly---it is not.

If so then it is property of someone.... otherwise it's an autonomous
human being.

>>> Not in your lifetime will that ever happen. It is legally (almost)
>>> impossible to assign "personhood" status to a non-born fetus without
>>> massive legal problems--almost too numerous to mention.
>>
>> It is Unconstitutional for the Federal government to assign person-hood,
>> they don't have the power,
>

> And that agrees with the fact they DO NOT assign "personhood" to
> fetuses.

And we see that the unalienable RIGHTS are for all human life, NOT just
the few that the government selects. That's because they are endowed by
the creator.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:49:35 -0800 (PST), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>On Feb 27, 6:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>> >that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>> >abortion.....
>>
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> Sure there is.
>>
>> "Thou shalt not murder"
>>
>> Simple enough to understand.
>
>You cannot 'murder' a form of 'life' that is not sentient.
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>

Then no one will be prosecuted for killing you and the rest of the far
leftwing extremist fringe kooks?

>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> --
>> One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
>> in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
>> and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
>> not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
>>                                    Gunner Asch

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:2cT2r.61481$NV6....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 2/27/2012 2:57 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:47:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
>>>>> for the Bible to make a similar one?
>>>>
>>>> 2 good reasons
>>>>
>>>> 1) the bible is religious and therefore exluded from afflicting law
>>>>
>>>> 2) The constittution is the ONLY arbiter of what the law is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you support making a human life property and even a female human life
>>> in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property of a
>>> man is evil?
>>
>> "property" is your term. It's Called "begging the question fallacy"
>> and isn't a legitimate argument form
>
> NOPE... having the power to destroy something or someone is ownership.
> A woman can kill her fetus so it is property, just as a slave owner
> could do with his property as he saw fit. A woman would NOT be allowed
> to kill her child if the child has RIGHTS to LIFE or any other RIGHTS.
> Because killing it would violate the other RIGHTS. Obviously it is
> property. NO RIGHTS and no free will.
>

LOL
Your definitions of "property", "person" are not in line with current legal
definitions
When you misrepresent the meaning of the words you use, YOU LIE

rest of lies ignored

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:rlP2r.84353$Xo4....@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 2/27/2012 11:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:18:54 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only the
>>> has a right to abort a human life....
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
>>> for the Bible to make a similar one?
>>
>> 2 good reasons
>>
>> 1) the bible is religious and therefore exluded from afflicting law
>>
>> 2) The constittution is the ONLY arbiter of what the law is.
>>
>
>
> So you support making a human life property and even a female human life
> in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property of a
> man is evil?
>
> Isn't that sexist and one sided? Are you sure this is what you wanted
> to tell us that you believe?
>

We're still waiting for you to support your claim that the Supreme Court has
declared a fetus to be property.

[trainguard]

On Feb 28, 6:53 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:49:35 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>
>
>
>
>
> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 6:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>
> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
> >> >that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
> >> >abortion.....
>
> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> Sure there is.
>
> >> "Thou shalt not murder"
>
> >> Simple enough to understand.
>
> >You cannot 'murder' a form of 'life' that is not sentient.
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Then no one will be prosecuted for killing you and the rest of the far
> leftwing extremist fringe kooks?

We all know that you are an idiot. There is no need to demonstrate
that fact.

Dr. Barry Worthington

>
>
>
> >> Gunner
>
> >> --
> >> One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
> >> in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
> >> and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
> >> not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
> >>                                    Gunner Asch
>
> --
> "The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
>  capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
>  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
> Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
> and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
> such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
> fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of

> fools that made him their prince".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:2cT2r.61481$NV6....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

> NOPE... having the power to destroy something or someone is ownership.

Hmmm... So America owns the world?

After all we have the power to destroy it.

If I pour a gallon of gasoline over your car and lit it up. Will the fact
that I destroyed your car really prove that it was my property?

I think your claims have little connection to reality.

The ability to destroy someone or something has NOTHING to do with
ownership, only your capacity to kill or destroy.

[Jeff Strickland]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:r44ok7tkcmgo6sov8...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:42:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
>>news:62onk7peofdca87h5...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> "When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two
>>> tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not
>>> obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for
>>> it that his tellng them so; and I have no other authority for
>>> it than some historian telling me me so. "
>>>
>>> "The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them;
>>> they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualfied
>>> to be a law-giver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without
>>> having recourse to supernatural intervention."
>>
>>Then WHY are liberals so obsessed with making sure the Ten Commandments to
>>not appear in the public sphere?
>

> Gee--do you suppost that if GOVERNMENT lends authenticity to them---as
> offical dicta---that it elevates religion (establishes)?
>

Make up your fucking mind already. Government does not say, "this is
religion," and therefore it is. It is religion whether government says it
is, or not.

>>If there is no divinity, then there is no
>>religion, and if there is no religion then there is nothing to separate
>>from
>>the state, and if there is nothing to separate from the state, then why is
>>the separation of church and state the primary reason to not allow them in
>>the public sphere?
>

> You're babbling religious nonsense. That's why it's not part of
> government doctrine.
>

YOU are the one that said there is no divinity -- well, you copied it. I'm
merely extrapolating what you said to a logical conclusion. If there is no
divinity then there is no religion. If there is no religion, then there is
nothing to separate. But you argue separation as the reason to not allow the
10 Commandments. On the one hand you make the argument that there is no
religion, on the other hand religion is the reason you cannot tolerate the
10 Commandments.

Dude, I'm not the one babbling here. You need to talk to the man in the
mirror about that.

>>Seems you are opposed to religion, not in favor of separating it from the
>>state. That seems to be the argument you just made, given the citation you
>>provided.
>

> More nonsense
>
> Religion can exist, operate, spread all the nonsense they
> choose----but NOT using government or public property that ALL faiths,
> religions, or beliefs pay for.
>
>

I'm confused. You made a point of posting a quote that says specifically
that there is no inherent divinity in the Ten Commandments, and now you are
arguing the Ten Commandments are a religious display. They are either not
divine, and therefore not religious, or they are divine. They are not both.

My conclusion based on your own postings is that you really don't care about
separation at all, you only care about religion and the supression of it
wherever you might one day stand. You argue (again) that you have a right to
be free from religion. You say religion can exist, but only in places where
you will never go. You argue on one hand that there is no divinity in the
Ten Commandments, then argue that you should be shielded from the Ten
Commandments because they are religious.

Ironically, I am perhaps the non-religious elephant in the room. But I
simply am not bothered by the hogwash that everybody around me drinks. I
only demand that I be allowed to go thirsty, and so far my demands are being
met. I see the fountain of hogwash in the public square, and crowds around
it dipping their mugs in to drink from it. You act as if your hands are
bound behind your back and they are pouring the hogwash down your throat.
This is simply not the case. They have a grand fountain, you have nothing.
So what?

My right is to not be denied public service because I do not dip my mug into
the fountain. My right is to not be made an example of because I do not dip
my mug into the fountain. I have no right to turn the fountain off, I only
have a right to not belly-up to it and fill my mug. I should not be offended
at those that are so silly as to pile around the fountain, indeed one of my
rights is to be amused at the specticle.

You have your panties in such a wad that your testicles are clamping your
thought process. Given many of the other posts you make here, it appears to
most of us that you give far too much of your thought process to the head at
the tip of your penis, which explains why tight skivvies are giving you such
a bad attitude. I say, go to the fountain in the public square and have a
good laugh instead of going there and looking for the plug so you can pull
it out and turn the fountain off.

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:55:01 -0800 (PST), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>On Feb 28, 6:53 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:49:35 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 27, 6:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>>
>> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>> >> >that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>> >> >abortion.....
>>
>> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >> Sure there is.
>>
>> >> "Thou shalt not murder"
>>
>> >> Simple enough to understand.
>>
>> >You cannot 'murder' a form of 'life' that is not sentient.
>>
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> Then no one will be prosecuted for killing you and the rest of the far
>> leftwing extremist fringe kooks?
>
>We all know that you are an idiot. There is no need to demonstrate
>that fact.

When Worthington says "we," he's speaking his homosexual friends.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/28/2012 2:40 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:50:19 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're babbling religious nonsense. That's why it's not part of
>>> government doctrine.
>>>
>>
>> YOU are the one that said there is no divinity -- well, you copied it.
>

> I copied and gave you the foremost influence on the "framers" as he
> warned them of allowing religious nuttery to be officially allowed to
> influence policy---including ascribing to Old Testament stories like
> the 10 commandments. His "Age of reason" is fairly straightforward.
>
> He makes no claim that individuals should not believe as they
> wish---this is a proscription of government doing so.

>
>>> Religion can exist, operate, spread all the nonsense they
>>> choose----but NOT using government or public property that ALL faiths,
>>> religions, or beliefs pay for.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm confused. You made a point of posting a quote that says specifically
>> that there is no inherent divinity in the Ten Commandments, and now you are
>> arguing the Ten Commandments are a religious display. They are either not
>> divine, and therefore not religious, or they are divine. They are not both.
>

> Yes they are. They are "divine" to ANY individual who CHOOSES to
> assign or beieve in the divinity.

That means that to a NON religious person they are secular "scribbling"
poems or other and NOT violating anyone's religious RIGHTS?

Why then must they be removed from a government building?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/28/2012 8:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:2cT2r.61481$NV6....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>> NOPE... having the power to destroy something or someone is ownership.
>
> Hmmm... So America owns the world?

We have the ability, no one authorized us the POWER to use the weapons
for that.

You are confusing constitutional powers with actual bombs. Yes we have
the bombs. NO, we don't have the authority from anyone to use them for that.

You are giving the woman the POWER/Authority to kill the baby in the
uterus.... she then seeks out a doctor with the ability to do it.

So you give the woman the RIGHT of ownership. And she can do with her
property as she pleases. That same ownership was authorized for Slaves
to work for owners.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It was de facto when the SCOTUS made it legal to kill the fetus. Just
as a slave could be beaten or "tortured" because they were NOT human
life and they were property.

Human life can NOT be tortured.
Slaves were tortured.


Today human life can NOT be killed without due process.
Fetus are killed.


It is the same in both cases, they are property.

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:iOa3r.113422$oV1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

SO it's juts YOUR "interpretation"
Same as the various misdefinitions you have used elsewhere

Got it..



Rest of gafflebag ignored

[Lookout]

No, fetus' are NOT killed. They are terminated. That is the correct
and accepted legal and medical terminology.
Taking a life refers to a PERSON.

>
>It is the same in both cases, they are property.

Nope, Not the same.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:44:38 -0800
typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
><barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>>Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>>that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>>abortion.....
>>
>>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>Sure there is.
>
>"Thou shalt not murder"
>
>Simple enough to understand.

What the left doesn't seem to grasp is that the morality
underlying the Law is just as critical as the actual statue itself.

If there is no "meta narrative" to the law, then the law can be
re-written according to whatever fashion the majority desires. Don't
like a class of "people"? Declare them un-persons, and thus it is no
longer "murder" or even "homicide" to kill them.
Etc, etc, ad nauseam.
>
>Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than
yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply
persists in his lunacy?" George Orwell

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:53:55 -0800

typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:49:35 -0800 (PST), trainguard
><barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 6:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>>>
>>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>>> >that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>>> >abortion.....
>>>
>>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>
>>> Sure there is.
>>>
>>> "Thou shalt not murder"
>>>
>>> Simple enough to understand.
>>
>>You cannot 'murder' a form of 'life' that is not sentient.
>>
>>Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>Then no one will be prosecuted for killing you and the rest of the far
>leftwing extremist fringe kooks?

It isn't murder, just termination of a failed experiment in
recombinant DNA.
--
pyotr filipivich
Watergate didn’t have a body count. Gunwalker has hundreds.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:24:37 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:44:38 -0800
>typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>><barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>>>Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>>>that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>>>abortion.....
>>>
>>>Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>>Sure there is.
>>
>>"Thou shalt not murder"
>>
>>Simple enough to understand.
>

No where in US law does it say "thou shalt not murder".

Silly christian law is unimportant in the discussion

[@bass.gov Michael Davis]

"Lookout" wrote in message
news:6lfqk7t6p1njl4q0b...@4ax.com...

^^^Lookout defines terminology ^^^

kewl! Then you can be "terminated" because someone can decide that YOU are
not a substantial human life form!

After all, you ARE a sub human, lying, worthless, POS drug abuser that
sucks the resources from others.

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:AHa3r.138809$rV3....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 2/28/2012 8:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:2cT2r.61481$NV6....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> NOPE... having the power to destroy something or someone is ownership.
>>
>> Hmmm... So America owns the world?
>
> We have the ability,

Then according to you, we own the world.

> no one authorized us the POWER to use the weapons
> for that.

Irrelevant, it is enough that we have the power to do so.

> You are confusing constitutional powers with actual bombs.

I'm just going by what you claimed. Are you attempting to retract your
assertion?

>Yes we have
> the bombs. NO, we don't have the authority from anyone to use them for
> that.

Who said anything about needing authority? You simply said we needed the
means.

Further since it's our property, we can destroy anytime we chose and we
don't need authority to do so.
Ownership gives us all the authority needed. Right?

Like I said, your claims are so divergent from reality as to be nonsensical.

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:iOa3r.113422$oV1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 2/28/2012 7:19 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:rlP2r.84353$Xo4....@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> On 2/27/2012 11:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:18:54 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that only
>>>>> the
>>>>> has a right to abort a human life....
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion than
>>>>> for the Bible to make a similar one?
>>>>
>>>> 2 good reasons
>>>>
>>>> 1) the bible is religious and therefore exluded from afflicting law
>>>>
>>>> 2) The constittution is the ONLY arbiter of what the law is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you support making a human life property and even a female human life
>>> in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property of a
>>> man is evil?
>>>
>>> Isn't that sexist and one sided? Are you sure this is what you wanted
>>> to tell us that you believe?
>>>
>>
>> We're still waiting for you to support your claim that the Supreme Court
>> has declared a fetus to be property.
>
> It was de facto when the SCOTUS made it legal to kill the fetus.

So criminals on death row are property? Who do they belong to?
Can you buy one?

I will simply note that your claims become more and more removed from any
connection to reality.

[Scout]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:aN6dnXRPVewWoNDS...@bright.net...

Why do you think I'm having so much fun with it. Nothing better than
definitions that are a denial of the reality that exists.

1) You own anything you can destroy.

If I can destroy his house, does that mean it's my property and he has to
start paying me rent?


2) Anything you can legally kill is property.

I can legally kill a criminal in self defense, does that mean I then own
them at that point?

If instead of killing them it happens that I only wound them, does that mean
I now have a slave?

After all, I could have killed him which makes him property and even though
he survived his status as property wouldn't change.

Yea, Scotty seems to be really out there these days.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You are no longer discussing what I said... so discuss it and have
fun.... I'm NOT sure what you are discussing because it has nothing to
do with my comments.



If you get back around to what "I" said then I'll comment.


It's you that have no connection to what was said, that's why you crop
the posts and cut them up and then try to answer a small piece of it out
of context.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually I was using your interpretation which is the SCOTUS
interpretation. You support SCOTUS in their abortion interpretation of
"Privacy" they say that a woman's RIGHT to privacy means they can kill
the baby in the uterus, you may call it abortion but it does kill the
human life(person) in the uterus.

If true and a woman has privacy and that covers the private killing of
the human life in the uterus, then as with privacy comes ownership,
because to get privacy of something you don't own... is, well too
ridiculous for even you to interject into this conversation. That is
tantamount to telling the police that the STOLEN car you are in can't be
searched because of your right to privacy.

So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY. If it's
NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
1) it is someone else's property like the car...
2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.

That makes the woman the owner of a human life, she can abuse it and or
abandon it or kill it as she sees fit within any regulations that
pertain to her ownership.



"MY" *comprehension* of reading the constitution is that the 13th
amendment bans any Slavery, also known as banning any human life from
being considered property.

SO I say the SCOTUS Privacy issue is violating the 13th amendment.

the SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade was unconstitutional.

[Jeff Strickland]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:claqk7tk73q8l9e5i...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:50:19 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Gee--do you suppost that if GOVERNMENT lends authenticity to them---as
>>> offical dicta---that it elevates religion (establishes)?
>>>
>>
>>Make up your fucking mind already. Government does not say, "this is
>>religion," and therefore it is. It is religion whether government says it
>>is, or not.
>

> By associating itself with religious it "establishes" authernticity of
> a particular brand, behavior, or dogma.
>
> There is nothing wrong with any government official being
> "religious"---
>
> But any official act OF a government officer, institution, policy,
> program cannot be associated with a religious rite, observation.
>
> Its the law.
>
> Whining, bitching, obfuscating, crying isn't gonna change it.


BUT YOU JUST FINISHED SAYING THAT THERE IS NO INHERENT DIVINITY IN THE TEN
COMMANDMENTS, that's what you said. You said there is no inherent divinity,
then turn around and proclaim them as religious dogma. It cannot be both.
There can be divinity, and therefore religious dogma, or there cannot be
divinity.

If there is no divinity, then who gives a flying fuck about separating the
state from the Ten Commandments. YOU, and your ilk, argue tirelessly that
the ten commandments are religious, then you post an opinion of a founding
father that says there is no divinity in them. If the founding fathers found
no divinity, what are you bitching about?

You are not interested in separation, because you work yourself into a
lather over an issue that you yourself said is not religious. This ignores
your repeated statements that I am the one pissing and moaning about
whatever you think the government is doing. I LIKE what the government is
doing, I'm pissing and moaning about YOU getting your knickers in a twist.

[Jeff Strickland]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:jqaqk75s52bosa4hj...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:50:19 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're babbling religious nonsense. That's why it's not part of
>>> government doctrine.
>>>
>>
>>YOU are the one that said there is no divinity -- well, you copied it.
>

> I copied and gave you the foremost influence on the "framers" as he
> warned them of allowing religious nuttery to be officially allowed to
> influence policy---including ascribing to Old Testament stories like
> the 10 commandments. His "Age of reason" is fairly straightforward.
>
> He makes no claim that individuals should not believe as they
> wish---this is a proscription of government doing so.
>

>>> Religion can exist, operate, spread all the nonsense they
>>> choose----but NOT using government or public property that ALL faiths,
>>> religions, or beliefs pay for.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm confused. You made a point of posting a quote that says specifically
>>that there is no inherent divinity in the Ten Commandments, and now you
>>are
>>arguing the Ten Commandments are a religious display. They are either not
>>divine, and therefore not religious, or they are divine. They are not
>>both.
>

> Yes they are. They are "divine" to ANY individual who CHOOSES to
> assign or beieve in the divinity.
>

> Once again--this is NOT an excercise of INDIVIDUAL preferences--but
> one against GOVERNMENT assigning legitimacy to them.
>
> The genesis of the 10 commandments cannot be proven by facts or
> evidence. Most of the concepts predate the Jewish tradition--so Paine
> ws correct that "anyone sitting in judgement of people would come to
> about the same conclusions...." independent of a metaphsical
> foundation. That would include Pagan where most of the stories
> emanated from

>
>>
>>My conclusion based on your own postings is that you really don't care
>>about
>>separation at all, you only care about religion and the supression of it
>

> False, True.
>
> I do care about separation, and damn sure want it suppressed in
> GOVERNMENT policy. How is that a hard concept?

>>
>>Ironically, I am perhaps the non-religious elephant in the room. But I
>>simply am not bothered by the hogwash that everybody around me drinks. I
>>only demand that I be allowed to go thirsty, and so far my demands are
>>being
>>met. I see the fountain of hogwash in the public square, and crowds around
>>it dipping their mugs in to drink from it. You act as if your hands are
>>bound behind your back and they are pouring the hogwash down your throat.
>>This is simply not the case. They have a grand fountain, you have nothing.
>>So what?
>

> Well, I won't snip that good bit of babble, looks to pretty....

>
>>My right is to not be denied public service because I do not dip my mug
>>into
>>the fountain.
>

> And your "right" to what is being denied?? THere's so much utter
> babbling that I don't think you said.
>

That's the point, none of my rights are being violated just because I pass a
fountain in the public square that has hogwash coming out that myj neighbors
drink from with gusto while I stand back and watch. I lose none of my rights
by ignoring the fountain. When I do lose some rights because I do not drink
from the fountain of hogwash, then we talk about the remedy. I do not care
that there are Ten Commandments posted around the court house. I do not care
that my city council wants to open with a prayer. I do not care that a kid
in high school earns the right to address his classmates, and chooses to use
the time to go Tim Tebow on everybody. I simply do not care.

I do care that the school rounds up the children and has them study the
bible. I do care that I may be jailed for not carrying my bible. These are
examples of imposing religion on me, and I am expressly protected from this
happening. But I am only protected by the 1st Amendment from being forced to
worship, I am not protected from the random exposure that is meaningless if
I am allowed to ignore it. You, and your ilk, are railing against simple
exposure as if that exposure is a symptom of something more. Rail against
real harm, and I'll be there screaming at the top of my lungs with you. But
there is no harm from the simple display of something that I do not agree
with and which I am allowed to ignore.

I just realized, you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills
whatsoever. You say shit that you have no idea that you have said, and you
read stuff that you have no clue what you read.

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F4D6A4C...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

Your lie is claiming that a "human life in the uterus" is a "person"
It's NOT !

The rest is all babble to cover for that lie

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:55:01 -0800 (PST), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>On Feb 28, 6:53 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:49:35 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 27, 6:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>>
>> >> <barry_worthing...@sky.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>> >> >that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>> >> >abortion.....
>>
>> >> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> >> Sure there is.
>>
>> >> "Thou shalt not murder"
>>
>> >> Simple enough to understand.
>>
>> >You cannot 'murder' a form of 'life' that is not sentient.
>>
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> Then no one will be prosecuted for killing you and the rest of the far
>> leftwing extremist fringe kooks?
>
>We all know that you are an idiot. There is no need to demonstrate
>that fact.
>
>Dr. Barry Worthington

Make up your mind Worthless. Either its illegal to kill life thats not
sentient (which means you and yours) or it is.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:24:37 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:44:38 -0800
>typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:44:37 -0800 (PST), trainguard
>><barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:
>>>Perhaps they realised that the law is not dependent on the Bible, and
>>>that there are no relevant scriptural injunctions relating to
>>>abortion.....
>>>
>>>Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>>Sure there is.
>>
>>"Thou shalt not murder"
>>
>>Simple enough to understand.
>
> What the left doesn't seem to grasp is that the morality
>underlying the Law is just as critical as the actual statue itself.
>
> If there is no "meta narrative" to the law, then the law can be
>re-written according to whatever fashion the majority desires. Don't
>like a class of "people"? Declare them un-persons, and thus it is no
>longer "murder" or even "homicide" to kill them.
> Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Indeed. As most Leftards are without class...the Great Cull will simply
be a removal of the trash.

Trash removal project..I rather like that.

<VBG>

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:38:52 -0600, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>>>
>>>>Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>
>>>Sure there is.
>>>
>>>"Thou shalt not murder"
>>>
>>>Simple enough to understand.
>>
>No where in US law does it say "thou shalt not murder".
>
>Silly christian law is unimportant in the discussion

Actually..US law defines what murder is and says its illegal

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:25:35 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>

So a child just born isnt a human being?

[trainguard]

My father and his mates once stumbled upon someone like you. It was in
Italy, in a farmyard. The man's belly had burst open and was now full
of maggots and flies buzzed around the corpse. The head was so black
and swollen that the features were unrecognisable. The uniform was
stained, but still sported SS Runes on it. One of the local peasants
said that a group of SS had rounded up hostages from the village and
shot them. This one strayed too far, and the old farmer protected his
daughter and grandchildren by killing him with a shotgun.

I thought that you might wish to meditate upon this fact, and what can
happen to people who think as you do....


Dr. Barry Worthington

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:Kqd3r.99402$5f3....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

I most certainly am.

Your claim, " [a fetus is property] was de facto when the SCOTUS made it

legal to kill the fetus.

I'm just trying to figure out if you're consistent in your claim.

Apparently not, and you have a double standard in play..

Now if you have to use a double standard, the question of why your legal
theories aren't consistent need to be considered.

<snip>

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:42:08 -0800

We can call it a "quality of life restoration project."

[Gunner Asch]

Like Me? Oddly...that dead SS guy..a German National Socialist got
exactly what other Socialists will get from the villagers. So Id be
shucking that uniform really quick Herr Worthless when you hear the
screams and shooting. Because the villagers will indeed be coming for
you.

Gunner

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> Your claim, " [a fetus is property] was de facto when the SCOTUS made it
> legal to kill the fetus.

OK back to what I "actually" said, I can answer that because I know what
the truth is.

Now what is wrong with what I said?

["It was de facto when the SCOTUS made it legal to kill the fetus. Just

as a slave could be beaten or "tortured" because they were NOT human

life and they were property."]

Actually I was using your interpretation which is the SCOTUS
interpretation. You support SCOTUS in their abortion interpretation of
"Privacy" they say that a woman's RIGHT to privacy means they can kill
the baby in the uterus, you may call it abortion but it does kill the
human life(person) in the uterus.

If true and a woman has privacy and that covers the private killing of
the human life in the uterus, then as with privacy comes ownership,

because to get privacy of something you don't own... is too

ridiculous for even you to interject into this conversation. That is
tantamount to telling the police that the STOLEN car you are in can't be
searched because of your right to privacy.

So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.

But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,

1) it is someone else's property like the car...
2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.

That makes the woman the owner of a human life, she can abuse it and or
abandon it or kill it as she sees fit within any regulations that

pertain to her ownership. It's like owning a mule.


["Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."]

Killing a human by disparaging the RIGHTS of a human life so that a
woman can have an abortion violates amendment 9.

"MY" *comprehension* of reading the constitution is that the 13th
amendment bans any Slavery, also known as banning any human life from
being considered property.

SO I say the SCOTUS Privacy issue is violating the 13th amendment.

the Supreme Court Of The United States(SCOTUS) decision on Roe v Wade
was unconstitutional.

Because they have made the life in the uterus property of the woman, and
making a human life property is slavery.

You are free to be pro SLAVERY, that's OK and I won't call you names,
but just recognize the fact that you are supporting slavery and admit
it. Abortion is NOT a privacy issue, but as the courts see fit to put
up that facade and say it is, they leave themselves open to be
supporting slavery once again as they did in Dredd Scott. The problem
is that the 13th amendment no longer allows slavery in the USA.


["AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A
portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by
the 13th amendment.
Section 1.

*Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude*, except as a punishment for
crime *whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.

Congress *shall have power to enforce* this article by appropriate
legislation."]

Obviously the congress can ban killing a human life in teh uterus and
stop this form of human life ownership and slavery.

AMENDMENT XIV
["nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; "]

*The PARADOX is that if the human life in the uterus is NOT* a *person*,
*it is then PROPERTY and to make a human life property* is
*unconstitutional as per the 13th amendment*.

Or else a person in a vegetative (brain dead state becomes property and
a slave to their owner) Vegetative slavery would then be
constitutional in the States due to Amendment 10. You could buy and
sell vegetative NON persons or actually *persons* as sex slaves in
States that don't make it "expressly" illegal.

This one SCOTUS decision to make constitutional the killing of a human
life in the uterus has created so many problems that it shouldn't have,
and it did create the constitutional problems because it was a violation
of the constitution.

BUYING AND SELLING A HUMAN LIFE IS SLAVERY because it makes them
property, as does offering privacy to the OWNER of the human life over
that human life.....

By reading your description of the abortion laws....
I might think that a *man's part* inserted into a Vagina becomes the
private property of the woman since it is inside her bodies reproductive
system. Can a woman kill that part also? Would it also be privacy since
it is inside her body?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> Your claim, " [a fetus is property] was de facto when the SCOTUS made it
> legal to kill the fetus.

OK back to what I "actually" said, I can answer that because I know what
the truth is.

Now what is wrong with what I said?

["It was de facto when the SCOTUS made it legal to kill the fetus. Just

as a slave could be beaten or "tortured" because they were NOT human

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:28:22 -0800, pyotr filipivich

Oooh! Thats very very good!!!

>--
>pyotr filipivich
>Watergate didn’t have a body count. Gunwalker has hundreds.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Do they get a call from their ObamaCare health improvement program, and
go in to get an injection that will improve the general welfare of the
United States.

It's a lethal injection.

[RD Sandman]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:jik0hv$k2g$1...@dont-email.me:

Well said.....again.

> I just realized, you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills
> whatsoever. You say shit that you have no idea that you have said, and
> you read stuff that you have no clue what you read.

--


If you woke up this morning, don't complain.....


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[pyotr filipivich]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> on Wed,
29 Feb 2012 12:55:10 -0500 typed in misc.survivalism the following:

Okay, that's one reason in favor of Obamacare.

>
>It's a lethal injection.

But let us call it part of the "Well Baby Program". I mean, who
can be opposed to that?


--
pyotr
If poverty causes crime, as a means of crime prevention
maybe we should be doing more to make people rich?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4qerk7ps0q0u3tdnh...@4ax.com...

"Just born" is the moment when it becomes a "person" in the eyes of the law.

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:P2t3r.141103$rV3....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

So according to your (twisted) ahem "logic", when a cop kills a criminal,
that criminal becomes the "property" of the cop ??
Or when a soldier kills an enemy soldier, that enemy is the property of the
soldier doing the killing ?

Can you see the flaw of your basic premise ???

>
>
>
>
> Actually I was using your interpretation which is the SCOTUS
> interpretation. You support SCOTUS in their abortion interpretation of
> "Privacy" they say that a woman's RIGHT to privacy means they can kill
> the baby in the uterus, you may call it abortion but it does kill the
> human life(person) in the uterus.
>

A "fetus" is NOT a "baby" by ANY current usage, except the twisted usage of
anti-abortion liars
A "fetus" is NOT a "person" yet
Many other forms of "human life" are killed without ANY complaint from such
as you.
Cancer cells, inflamed appendix, gangrenous tissue, etc.




rest of misrepresentation and outright lies ignored

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:08:24 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>
wrote:

Odd that blacks were once counted as "half a person" and native
americans only 10% people, under the eyes of the law, eh wot?

Something terribly wrong with that bit of law, wouldnt you say?

Given the number of children who are taken by ceasarian section long
before the 9 months is up..who once cut from the mother..become
"persons"

And Im curious about those not so are 9+ and 10 month children...on
their 9th month plus 1 day..do they become "persons" as well, even
though still in the womb?

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:36:03 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>

Odd that those cells are gentically identical to the person with them,
unlike that pesky child, isnt it?

>
>
>
>
>rest of misrepresentation and outright lies ignored
>

[Jeff Strickland]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:sa2tk7t24cmms71kj...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:30:58 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> I do care that the school rounds up the children and has them study
>>> the bible. I do care that I may be jailed for not carrying my bible.
>>> These are examples of imposing religion on me, and I am expressly
>>> protected from this happening. But I am only protected by the 1st
>>> Amendment from being forced to worship, I am not protected from the
>>> random exposure that is meaningless if I am allowed to ignore it. You,
>>> and your ilk, are railing against simple exposure as if that exposure
>>> is a symptom of something more. Rail against real harm, and I'll be
>>> there screaming at the top of my lungs with you. But there is no harm
>>> from the simple display of something that I do not agree with and
>>> which I am allowed to ignore.
>>
>>Well said.....again.
>

> Except that's extreme fanciful dreaming
>
> The real issue is for the denial, introduction, or use of government
> to predicate votes based on religious conviction.
>
> Government/politics is a system of debate and compromise.
>
> If the growing number of legislators who introduce religious
> conviction as reason for a vote, or refuse to debate or compromise on
> legislation citing personal belief, we have what we're now
> experiencing
>
> It is a fact that "principles" are supposed to remain constant. Fine
> for personal life
>
> A politician is a public figure--elected to do public work where
> thousands, maybe millions of citizens rely on their representation.
>
> If they cannot compromise on public policy because of religious
> belief--then they are creating government that is bad.
>


What part of, of the people, for the people, and by the people causes you so
much confusion.

The People, by its very definition is a majority of the population. Social
values ebb and flow as the population changes, and We the People have the
power to make the rules as they would conform to out ideals. We make those
rules in the House and Senate, collectively called Congress. The occupants
of Congress reflect the make up of the society as a whole. A few malcontents
work from virtually every angle to beat the rest of us into submission, and
that is wrong.

There is no fanciful dreaming, at least not from me. I look at the rules as
the court has laid them down, and I see them as flawed to the point that
there is social unrest as a result. We already have prayer in Congress, Ten
Commandments on the walls of the highest court in the land, a National Motto
on each and every piece of currency in existance since 1954, and many pieces
of currency long before that.

You assert that you want to ban religion only from government, but it is
clear that what you really want is to ban religion. You already said, just
yesterday, that the Ten Commandments have, "no inherent divinity evident,"
yet despite your own admitted lack of divinity you continue to insist that
the Ten Commandments is so steeped in religion as to violate the separation
clause. And, you have demonstrated absolutely no harm done by the Ten
Commandments or the cross on the hill or anything else. All you demonstrate
over and over again is that the formerly permissible display of religious
icons violates the separation of church and state, yet the separation of
church and state is nothing more than a passing muse in an obscure writing
of Thomas Jefferson, it is not a law that has made itself present in the
Constitution, nor in any legislative action since.

Clearly there are governmental intrusions into religion and religious
intrusions into government, and we must remain vigilent to these
transgressions and work tirelessly to prevent them, or unwind them after
they occur. Clearly this is true. And you do this on the grounds of
separation.

But the mere presence of religion does not an endorsement make, and so what
if it is endorsed, the prohibition is against the establishment thereof. You
are agruing for the better part of a decade that I have been on Usenet that
any and all religion is banned by the separation clause. I have been arguing
that separation should only be invoked when there is some manner of harm.
Harm comes in many faces, but the mere exposure to religion on public
property is harmless.

We the People have a general make up, and we elect representatives that fit
what we think our make up is. We grow up being taught by our parents and
other significant adults, we get married and bring our onw children into the
world where they are taught by us and other significant adults. With each
generation, the social make up changes a little this way, then a little that
way, and back again. That's how it works. In a perfect world, we would
always make a step forward followed by another. In the real world we make
two steps forward and a step back, then two forward, then another and
another, then three steps back. That's life. That's what all of the people
say.

When a step forward, or back, causes harm then we have a court system that
helps us toward a remedy. You clog the court with arguments for which the
remedy is to prevent harm that has not happened. You dream harm, and for
that you seek remedy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The 13th amendment doesn't specify what kind of human is protected from
being a slave, just that the "party" in question can not be inducted
into slavery or indentured servitude unless they have been duly
convicted of a crime.

That means any human life.... NO one can be made a slave/indentured
servant unless convicted of a crime.

>>> The rest is all babble to cover for that lie

Call it what you will, it is the truth.

[RD Sandman]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:jim7ge$i17$1...@dont-email.me:

It is a tad more than just a passing muse. It is Jefferson explaining
the First Amendment to the Danubury Baptists in 1802 where he said:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in
proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &
not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &
State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the
Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from
prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced
indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its
church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary
regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of
conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those
sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced
he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the
common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your
religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

>
> Clearly there are governmental intrusions into religion and religious
> intrusions into government, and we must remain vigilent to these
> transgressions and work tirelessly to prevent them, or unwind them
> after they occur. Clearly this is true. And you do this on the grounds
> of separation.

Yes.

> But the mere presence of religion does not an endorsement make, and so
> what if it is endorsed, the prohibition is against the establishment
> thereof.

If the government allows Christian momentos or artifacts, then so as to
show no establishment of a particular religion, it cannot deny the same
consideration to a Menorrah or Star of David, or the Muslim Crescent and
Star, or the Hindu Aum or their Swastika, among others. It is much
easier to simply deny the display of all religious artifacts in the
public sector unless as a form of historical note.

You are agruing for the better part of a decade that I have
> been on Usenet that any and all religion is banned by the separation
> clause. I have been arguing that separation should only be invoked
> when there is some manner of harm. Harm comes in many faces, but the
> mere exposure to religion on public property is harmless.

While I agree (and I am agnostic) with you, many others don't.

> We the People have a general make up, and we elect representatives
> that fit what we think our make up is. We grow up being taught by our
> parents and other significant adults, we get married and bring our onw
> children into the world where they are taught by us and other
> significant adults. With each generation, the social make up changes a
> little this way, then a little that way, and back again. That's how it
> works. In a perfect world, we would always make a step forward
> followed by another. In the real world we make two steps forward and a
> step back, then two forward, then another and another, then three
> steps back. That's life. That's what all of the people say.
>
> When a step forward, or back, causes harm then we have a court system
> that helps us toward a remedy. You clog the court with arguments for
> which the remedy is to prevent harm that has not happened. You dream
> harm, and for that you seek remedy.

Overall, a good post.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Uuuummmmm.... NO I see that the court has deemed the human life in the
uterus as a "slave" and by that right of property and the woman's RIGHT
of Privacy, it is legal to do what she wants with "her property".


What you are doing is mixing up the violation of the criminals human's
RIGHT TO LIFE with property/privacy RIGHTS. You and the court say the
baby is property but the criminal is a human life. Killing a criminal
is actually a crime that must be investigated. If it was self defence
then there is NO punishment.


If as I say the baby in the uterus is a live human then killing it is
murder. The same as the criminal being murdered, Now whether it was
self defence is for the courts to decide in those cases.

The criminal is NOT property until after he is dead, because you and the
court claim that his human life is somehow more important than the human
life in the uterus.

[Jeff Strickland]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA008A3D63...@216.196.121.131...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that we are a Christian Nation.
We allow you to not be Christian, but our core identity is with Christ. I
see nothing wrong with that.

Now, when you come before a government entity, they must never ask if you
are Christian. Your right shall always be that you can be any religion that
you wish, or no religion at all. But whatever you are has no bearing on what
the preponderance of everybody else is. And if you feel left out, then so be
it -- you made a choice, live with it.

And if we have public displays of a Cross in one community and a public
display of a Menorah or a Buddhist statue in another, then that would
indicate to me nothing more than the citizens of that community held that
faith for the most part. So what. I'm adult enough to accept that my faith
is not the only one out there. It is my faith, and it is right for me, and I
like to see signs of it every chance I get, but I am not offended at other
displays of faith.

Once again, your protection under the 1st Amendment is that you do not have
to be Christian if you don't want to be, but you are not shielded from
displays of Christianity that you can simply ignore and go about your
business. And you do not have an automatic right to display your Buddhist
statue just because a Cross has been erected somewhere.

[trainguard]

Yes. Same mind-set. Same sociopathic attitudes. One difference,
though. His were inculcated by the Nazi State. In your case...well,
you may have a warped mind...

>Oddly...that dead SS guy..a German National Socialist got
> exactly what other Socialists will get from the villagers.

Another difference. He was taught to hate socialists. You don't know
what they are....

>So Id be
> shucking that uniform really quick Herr Worthless when  you hear the
> screams and shooting. Because the villagers will indeed be coming for
> you.

In 1943, they might be singing....

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa
Bandiera rossa, bandiera rossa
Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Dr. Barry Worthington

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And the very same human life is able to be murdered inside a uterus but
NOT outside the uterus, it is the very same DNA and the very same size
and weight as the moment before it emerged....


If a Slave was 5/8 of a person once born what happened to the other 3/8
of that person? Did it remain in the uterus? Why was it NOT 5/8 of a
person while inside the uterus?

Where did it say that they were only 5/8 of a person after they were
born? And isn't it time we did away with the rest of this discrimination
and make the slaves a whole person from the time of conception until the
time of death..... why discriminate against the children and children's
children of slaves, by NOT counting them as a full person in the uterus.

Why do Liberals like to discriminate against groups of people?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

["AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A
portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by
the 13th amendment.
Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment* for
*crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted* , shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."]

[Steve]

I just love how the Socialists always claim that nobody really knows
about socialism... Yeah, right, they're just a bunch of nice people
who think they should be allowed to run everybody else's life for
them...

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:30:15 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that we are a Christian Nation.
>We allow you to not be Christian, but our core identity is with Christ. I
>see nothing wrong with that.

Nor do I, a Buddhist. But I do have to beg to differ with you. America
is not Christian..but Theist. Even the Founders believed in God..but not
all believed in "Christ". ie fundimentalist Christians.

Just a heads up. Keep up the good work.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:38:33 -0800 (PST), trainguard
<barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote:

>>
>> >I thought that you might wish to meditate upon this fact, and what can
>> >happen to people who think as you do....
>>
>> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> Like Me?
>
>Yes. Same mind-set. Same sociopathic attitudes. One difference,
>though. His were inculcated by the Nazi State. In your case...well,
>you may have a warped mind...
>

Sorry..Im not a Leftwing Socialist.

>
>>Oddly...that dead SS guy..a German National Socialist got
>> exactly what other Socialists will get from the villagers.
>
>Another difference. He was taught to hate socialists. You don't know
>what they are....

Actually..your ignorance continues to shine like a fresh saddle sore.

He was taught to BE a socialist. You refuse to accept that he was much
the same as you. Despite the megabytes of data presented here that
shows Fascists are just another branch of Socialist.

That indicates to me..you are mentally ill. But then..thats pretty much
typical for Leftwingers to be mentally ill. Be it you, Stalin, Hitler or
Mao. Just more of the same in varying degrees.

National Socialism..simply doesnt click in your brain (such as it is)
does it?

Simply proof you are mentally ill and in strong denial.


Gunner

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f46tk7d6m7dr6fs4j...@4ax.com...

I notice that the verb you used was "WAS"..
Notice how your claim is not applicable today.
You are going to have to decide what time frame you are trying to play fast
and loose in...

> Something terribly wrong with that bit of law, wouldnt you say?
>

What law is that ?
A law that has not been on the books for quite a while
Try to stick to the present to argue your case

> Given the number of children who are taken by ceasarian section long
> before the 9 months is up..who once cut from the mother..become
> "persons"
>

Yup
That's part of the notion behind birth certificates
They attest that you are born and alive
Notice that they are not give to fetuses that are aborted both naturally and
medically
AS a matter of fact, they are not issued for the still born either
(Notice they are called "stillborn", and et get no Birth Certificate)
And in some jurisdictions, they are even called "Certificates of Live
Birth"..

> And Im curious about those not so are 9+ and 10 month children...on
> their 9th month plus 1 day..do they become "persons" as well, even
> though still in the womb?
>

Yup
In the womb you are a fetus no matter how short or long your stay is.
It's when you come out a certain way are are alive at the end of the
exercise that you become a person.

And that law where they try to charge you for both the mother and the fetus
has some major definitional issues. And it surprises me that it has not been
challenge by a smart defense lawyer in a case where prosecutors try to use
it.
Clearly the legal status of the fetus under that law is directly in conflict
with the status of the fetus in Roe v Wade.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:sa6tk7d5kqk2o88sb...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:36:03 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>message news:P2t3r.141103$rV3....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>

>>> Actually I was using your interpretation which is the SCOTUS
>>> interpretation. You support SCOTUS in their abortion interpretation of
>>> "Privacy" they say that a woman's RIGHT to privacy means they can kill
>>> the baby in the uterus, you may call it abortion but it does kill the
>>> human life(person) in the uterus.
>>>
>>
>>A "fetus" is NOT a "baby" by ANY current usage, except the twisted usage
>>of
>>anti-abortion liars
>>A "fetus" is NOT a "person" yet
>>Many other forms of "human life" are killed without ANY complaint from
>>such
>>as you.
>> Cancer cells, inflamed appendix, gangrenous tissue, etc.
>
> Odd that those cells are gentically identical to the person with them,
> unlike that pesky child, isnt it?
>

Funny how I fail to see the SCOTUS decision making such a distinction
Can you cite where they do ???
And if you read the OP, he does NOT make such a distinction with his
misrepresentations and misuse of vocabulary

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:VTx3r.102027$2a.2...@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...

That's nice
Too bad it's irrelevant

>>>> The rest is all babble to cover for that lie
>
>
> Call it what you will, it is the truth.
>
>

<snicker>
You've been chewing on that loco weed, haven't you ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:GRy3r.126902$oV1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

Stupid boring and repetitive circular arguments are just stupid and boring