info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: An embryo is not a "baby" or a "child"
3 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 29, 2022, 11:25:51 AM6/29/22
to
On 6/28/22 6:27 PM, Scout wrote:
> On 6/28/2022 1:00 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 6/28/22 3:54 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:20:10 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
>>>> who rode
>>>> his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
>>>> and lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> It just isn't. It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it
>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have
>>>>>> no problem
>>>>>> with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who
>>>>>> doesn't want it
>>>>>> inside her.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>>
>>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>>
>>> Neither is a 16 year old,
>
> Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA! I see kleine klauschen "no-foreskin"
> Schittenkike still thinks I see his posts. I don't.
>
>>
>> And so many laws that are meant to protect children that aren't laws
>> against children doing it they are against the adult doing it with a
>> kid and
>
> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a
> full person has.
An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
establish having been duly convicted.
Kill anyone NOT having full rights like Felons...? Blacks didn't have
full RIGHTS and Democrats made them slaves. You could make the embryo a
slave... except the 13th amendment says:
Amendment XIII
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.
*It says nothing about having to be a person to NOT be a slave* , it
says slavery can only exist as punishment... which means owning and
killing a human life that is still an embryo must be punishment for a
crime whereof the party (be they embryo at the beginning of life or gray
haired geriatric adult at the last day of life) shall have been duly
convicted... shall exist in the united states.
I don't see the embryo as a duly convicted embryo that is a human life
being a slave that can be enslaved or killed by the owner. Because
there is no owner of the human life in the uterus. It's impossible to
make it a slave or to kill it without it being duly convicted. No due
process no crime no self defense... it makes abortion murder.
Democrats want you to believe, you can't enslave a human life in the
uterus until it's duly convicted, but you can kill that same human life
without it being duly convicted. That isn't logical. And according to
the 13th Amendment you can't have slavery unless "the party" be they an
embryo human life or an adult human life, anywhere within the U.S.
Jurisdiction.
Interesting that the people saving the BLACK SLAVES wrote an amendment
that protected all human life because the term used was (the party),
from slavery for anything but punishment, but they didn't consider that
the human life had such a low value before it was outside the uterus
that murdering the black human life inside the protected uterus was
still permitted without it also being called punishment. Which suggests
that Democrats would MURDER BLACKS in the Blacks uterus while at the
same time NOT allowing them to be enslaved unless the embryo was duly
convicted first. According to Democrat logic... killing the human life
as an "embryo" is OK, you just can't make it a slave while in the uterus
or outside the uterus unless or until it's duly convicted.
Considering Democrats supported BLACK LIVES MATTER why would those same
Democrats determine that a black human life inside a uterus doesn't
matter? SO when someone said all lives matter Democrats got upset
because they knew that if *ALL LIVES MATTER* that it would include human
lives inside a uterus. And Democrats planned eugenics and their
continued organized genocide couldn't continue if all lives mattered.
I think we found the failure in the Democrat logic. And it points to
their duplicity once again. Democrats pretend to protect human life and
yet they only want to protect some human life that they decide is worthy
or needed at the moment to satisfy their own narcissistic lust for power.
--
-That's karma-
> On 6/28/2022 1:00 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 6/28/22 3:54 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:20:10 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
>>>> who rode
>>>> his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
>>>> and lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> It just isn't. It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it
>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have
>>>>>> no problem
>>>>>> with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who
>>>>>> doesn't want it
>>>>>> inside her.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>>
>>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>>
>>> Neither is a 16 year old,
>
> Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA! I see kleine klauschen "no-foreskin"
> Schittenkike still thinks I see his posts. I don't.
>
>>
>> And so many laws that are meant to protect children that aren't laws
>> against children doing it they are against the adult doing it with a
>> kid and
>
> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a
> full person has.
An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
establish having been duly convicted.
Kill anyone NOT having full rights like Felons...? Blacks didn't have
full RIGHTS and Democrats made them slaves. You could make the embryo a
slave... except the 13th amendment says:
Amendment XIII
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.
*It says nothing about having to be a person to NOT be a slave* , it
says slavery can only exist as punishment... which means owning and
killing a human life that is still an embryo must be punishment for a
crime whereof the party (be they embryo at the beginning of life or gray
haired geriatric adult at the last day of life) shall have been duly
convicted... shall exist in the united states.
I don't see the embryo as a duly convicted embryo that is a human life
being a slave that can be enslaved or killed by the owner. Because
there is no owner of the human life in the uterus. It's impossible to
make it a slave or to kill it without it being duly convicted. No due
process no crime no self defense... it makes abortion murder.
Democrats want you to believe, you can't enslave a human life in the
uterus until it's duly convicted, but you can kill that same human life
without it being duly convicted. That isn't logical. And according to
the 13th Amendment you can't have slavery unless "the party" be they an
embryo human life or an adult human life, anywhere within the U.S.
Jurisdiction.
Interesting that the people saving the BLACK SLAVES wrote an amendment
that protected all human life because the term used was (the party),
from slavery for anything but punishment, but they didn't consider that
the human life had such a low value before it was outside the uterus
that murdering the black human life inside the protected uterus was
still permitted without it also being called punishment. Which suggests
that Democrats would MURDER BLACKS in the Blacks uterus while at the
same time NOT allowing them to be enslaved unless the embryo was duly
convicted first. According to Democrat logic... killing the human life
as an "embryo" is OK, you just can't make it a slave while in the uterus
or outside the uterus unless or until it's duly convicted.
Considering Democrats supported BLACK LIVES MATTER why would those same
Democrats determine that a black human life inside a uterus doesn't
matter? SO when someone said all lives matter Democrats got upset
because they knew that if *ALL LIVES MATTER* that it would include human
lives inside a uterus. And Democrats planned eugenics and their
continued organized genocide couldn't continue if all lives mattered.
I think we found the failure in the Democrat logic. And it points to
their duplicity once again. Democrats pretend to protect human life and
yet they only want to protect some human life that they decide is worthy
or needed at the moment to satisfy their own narcissistic lust for power.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 29, 2022, 1:16:14 PM6/29/22
to
On 6/29/22 11:30 AM, Alan Bond wrote:
> On 6/29/2022 8:25 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> red herring
> some cases, it resides in the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it
> there. It violates the woman's right to force her to keep it there. No
> one forces you to keep a cancerous tumor inside your body.
The embryo didn't choose to be there it was allowed to be there or put
there during a crime. By your standard anyone walks in during a murder
is automatically a duly convicted criminal, and anyone invited in can be
shot as a trespasser.
What you're saying is that a DRUNK DRIVER who decides they don't want to
be in prison, should be able to kill their cell mate in prison and get
out of prison because they chose to kill their cell mate?
The problem is you make free choices and those decision are often final
and NOT able to be undone, like killing someone in a DRUNK DRIVING
accident, and you have no way to un-ring that bell. GOING BACK IN TIME
and Killing the bartender isn't an option so going there on the way to
your court date and killing the bartender won't solve all the issues or
make your life better in prison it just creates new legal issues.
Some things just can't be undone. Killing the human life in the uterus
won't undo or solve the issue and once done it also can't be undone,
killing the life compounds the issue of creating it and makes it into
new problems. You can say that for some people it's less problem but
when you have to take into account Sociopath behavior and/or the PTSD
from guilt or trauma... which is both sides of the coin, by engaging in
more irreversible actions you have created an infinite number of other
possible issues.
--
-That's karma-
> On 6/29/2022 8:25 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
>
>> or to be killed as punishment for a crime where the
>
> No one said the embryo has committed any crime. The issue is that in
>> or to be killed as punishment for a crime where the
>
> some cases, it resides in the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it
> there. It violates the woman's right to force her to keep it there. No
> one forces you to keep a cancerous tumor inside your body.
The embryo didn't choose to be there it was allowed to be there or put
there during a crime. By your standard anyone walks in during a murder
is automatically a duly convicted criminal, and anyone invited in can be
shot as a trespasser.
What you're saying is that a DRUNK DRIVER who decides they don't want to
be in prison, should be able to kill their cell mate in prison and get
out of prison because they chose to kill their cell mate?
The problem is you make free choices and those decision are often final
and NOT able to be undone, like killing someone in a DRUNK DRIVING
accident, and you have no way to un-ring that bell. GOING BACK IN TIME
and Killing the bartender isn't an option so going there on the way to
your court date and killing the bartender won't solve all the issues or
make your life better in prison it just creates new legal issues.
Some things just can't be undone. Killing the human life in the uterus
won't undo or solve the issue and once done it also can't be undone,
killing the life compounds the issue of creating it and makes it into
new problems. You can say that for some people it's less problem but
when you have to take into account Sociopath behavior and/or the PTSD
from guilt or trauma... which is both sides of the coin, by engaging in
more irreversible actions you have created an infinite number of other
possible issues.
--
-That's karma-
KWills
Jun 30, 2022, 4:58:01 AM6/30/22
to
>Kill anyone NOT having full rights like Felons...? Blacks didn't have
>full RIGHTS and Democrats made them slaves. You could make the embryo a
>slave... except the 13th amendment says:
>
>Amendment XIII
>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.
>
>
>*It says nothing about having to be a person to NOT be a slave* , it
>says slavery can only exist as punishment... which means owning and
>killing a human life that is still an embryo must be punishment for a
>crime whereof the party (be they embryo at the beginning of life or gray
>haired geriatric adult at the last day of life) shall have been duly
>convicted... shall exist in the united states.
>
>I don't see the embryo as a duly convicted embryo that is a human life
MANY times. It is possible you're just too stupid to learn this. But
I think you're lying.
[Snip the remainder of your PROOF that you have a sub par intellect.]
--
KWills
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Don Kresch
Jun 30, 2022, 7:51:16 AM6/30/22
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>establish having been duly convicted.
for getting pregnant. She does not lose her self-ownership when she
becomes pregnant.
Don
aa#51
o- DNRC
Jedi Slackmaster
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 30, 2022, 11:34:06 AM6/30/22
to
On 6/30/22 10:49 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:56:27 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XMWdnf4uk4MWNiD_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-29 9:58 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:19:56 -0600, Somebody too
>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <vfnpbh5ar46he0420...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:15:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/2022 4:07 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it simply doesn't have them yet. Certain rights do not attach to a person
>>>>> until a certain age or stage of development.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me that in the constitution.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty* , or property,
*without due process of law* ; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
A person is a human life. And we can now say that the life of a person
begins at conception, and is continuous until death. There are stages of
life but they are still the same unique DNA of that individual life
until it ends with death. That life is what LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT
of happiness/PROPERTY is protected and it isn't limited to life outside
the uterus, so what isn't enumerated is which human life, but rather is
inclusive of all human life within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Government uses DNA in Court rooms to identify persons and their DNA
is the same from conception to death when the DNA breaks down. Which
means if DNA can be used in a court to convict someone in due process...
then the DNA has to be accepted to identify that person from conception
to death and it can't partially correct, it has to be correct all the
time. Meaning that at anytime you take the DNA and test it in a persons
life it tracks to them today, if not then it's NOT accurate evidence for
a court room to use, and DNA evidence is no longer acceptable as it once
was as scientific proof of who someone is.
There is at least one place where human life is protected and it's
enumerated in the actual Constitution. It does ever say Geriatric
person in the Constitution so the stages of life aren't broken down and
addressed separately... they are all together from Conception to Zygote
to death, the one thing that is protected is called human life.
I know of others like the 14th and 13th Amendments that also protect the
human life and the Liberty of that human life.
>>>
>>> Show me where the Constitution even addresses the existence
>>> of a fetus in any way.
*Preamble*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the*
*common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings*
*of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity* , do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
*Our posterity are the fetus'* and the preamble is a mission statement
for the Constitution to tell us what is trying to be accomplished by the
Constitution and the United States.
You can't secure blessings for a NON human life in a uterus that never
was because it was killed with an abortion. Which means they planned on
human lives being born and that means they are protected the same as the
human lives that already have been born. Because they are our
posterity. And you can't pass on what have to created if you kill the
heirs of it. Which means they recognized the fetus' as our posterity.
--
-That's karma-
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:56:27 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XMWdnf4uk4MWNiD_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-29 9:58 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:19:56 -0600, Somebody too
>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <vfnpbh5ar46he0420...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:15:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/2022 4:07 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, Scout
>>>>>> <me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
>>>>>>> person has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has those rights but cannot exercise all of them yet.
>>>>>> <me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
>>>>>>> person has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it simply doesn't have them yet. Certain rights do not attach to a person
>>>>> until a certain age or stage of development.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me that in the constitution.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty* , or property,
*without due process of law* ; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
A person is a human life. And we can now say that the life of a person
begins at conception, and is continuous until death. There are stages of
life but they are still the same unique DNA of that individual life
until it ends with death. That life is what LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT
of happiness/PROPERTY is protected and it isn't limited to life outside
the uterus, so what isn't enumerated is which human life, but rather is
inclusive of all human life within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Government uses DNA in Court rooms to identify persons and their DNA
is the same from conception to death when the DNA breaks down. Which
means if DNA can be used in a court to convict someone in due process...
then the DNA has to be accepted to identify that person from conception
to death and it can't partially correct, it has to be correct all the
time. Meaning that at anytime you take the DNA and test it in a persons
life it tracks to them today, if not then it's NOT accurate evidence for
a court room to use, and DNA evidence is no longer acceptable as it once
was as scientific proof of who someone is.
There is at least one place where human life is protected and it's
enumerated in the actual Constitution. It does ever say Geriatric
person in the Constitution so the stages of life aren't broken down and
addressed separately... they are all together from Conception to Zygote
to death, the one thing that is protected is called human life.
I know of others like the 14th and 13th Amendments that also protect the
human life and the Liberty of that human life.
>>>
>>> Show me where the Constitution even addresses the existence
>>> of a fetus in any way.
*Preamble*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the*
*common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings*
*of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity* , do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
*Our posterity are the fetus'* and the preamble is a mission statement
for the Constitution to tell us what is trying to be accomplished by the
Constitution and the United States.
You can't secure blessings for a NON human life in a uterus that never
was because it was killed with an abortion. Which means they planned on
human lives being born and that means they are protected the same as the
human lives that already have been born. Because they are our
posterity. And you can't pass on what have to created if you kill the
heirs of it. Which means they recognized the fetus' as our posterity.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 30, 2022, 12:08:09 PM6/30/22
to
On 6/30/22 10:52 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:55:31 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XMWdnf8uk4PJNiD_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-29 9:57 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 19:07:13 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>
>>> Not true.
>>>
>>> Things a person can do that a fetus cannot:
>>>
>>> Be claimed on an income tax return
>>> Qualify a driver for a carpool lane
>>> Buy any insurance
>>> Be counted in a census
>>> Own property
>>> be a citizen
>>> Inherit anything
>>>
>> i'm not allowed any of that either
>
> You must not be a citizen of any country, You cannot own
> property? You cannot inherit? You cannot buy insurance?
> You do not pay income tax?
>
And yet when you are born you inherit that and pay the tax and you owned
it in a trust all along while gestating until you are born... isn't that
what happened to that Anna Nichole baby...
https://www.thethings.com/will-anna-nicole-smith-daughter-get-her-money/
The mother held the gestating heir in the uterus but the same baby in
the uterus as the one outside the uterus was the heir, at least the DNA
suggested that. The same DNA and same continuous life of that DNA at a
different age was able to become the owner of the estate... just as
that same continuous DNA life could become an adult and vote for
Presidents at age 18. SO age is NOT a reflection on continuous DNA
life, the DNA life didn't start at birth it simply reached the age of
birth which we call zero and the end of gestation. NOT that there was
no life there before or that the DNA of that life changed or started
it's DNA life at birth. It's simply a question of where age
chronologically started, and it's a bit arbitrary. it's in the middle
of life, after roughly nine months of life has already passed and can't
be relived, it's gone and those 9 months are relative to life in the
midst of eternity because that life occupies a space in eternity that is
occupied by that life with that DNA... for 9 months before the
chronological clock of time is arbitrarily started. Which means that
simply NOT counting the time there was life... is not the same as saying
life did not exist. One is true the other is not, you don't count that
time as life but life did exist and the fact that life is continuous
from conception to death and only one DNA is there during that life is
proof that it started at conception whether you count it or not. All it
means is you believe in FAKE science. Close your eyes and the world
disappears, that must mean that you traveled to somewhere else, that's
if we use the FAKE SCIENCE of why a fetus' is not a human life. All we
have to do is close our eyes and we don't see a life, but is it there in
that time or not.
--
-That's karma-
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:55:31 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XMWdnf8uk4PJNiD_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-29 9:57 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 19:07:13 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <1ompbhplna0ct4u9u...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, Scout
>>>> <me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
>>>>> person has.
>>>>
>>>> It has those rights but cannot exercise all of them yet.
>>>>
>>>> Swill
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, Scout
>>>> <me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
>>>>> person has.
>>>>
>>>> It has those rights but cannot exercise all of them yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not true.
>>>
>>> Things a person can do that a fetus cannot:
>>>
>>> Be claimed on an income tax return
>>> Qualify a driver for a carpool lane
>>> Buy any insurance
>>> Be counted in a census
>>> Own property
>>> be a citizen
>>> Inherit anything
>>>
>> i'm not allowed any of that either
>
> You must not be a citizen of any country, You cannot own
> property? You cannot inherit? You cannot buy insurance?
> You do not pay income tax?
>
And yet when you are born you inherit that and pay the tax and you owned
it in a trust all along while gestating until you are born... isn't that
what happened to that Anna Nichole baby...
https://www.thethings.com/will-anna-nicole-smith-daughter-get-her-money/
The mother held the gestating heir in the uterus but the same baby in
the uterus as the one outside the uterus was the heir, at least the DNA
suggested that. The same DNA and same continuous life of that DNA at a
different age was able to become the owner of the estate... just as
that same continuous DNA life could become an adult and vote for
Presidents at age 18. SO age is NOT a reflection on continuous DNA
life, the DNA life didn't start at birth it simply reached the age of
birth which we call zero and the end of gestation. NOT that there was
no life there before or that the DNA of that life changed or started
it's DNA life at birth. It's simply a question of where age
chronologically started, and it's a bit arbitrary. it's in the middle
of life, after roughly nine months of life has already passed and can't
be relived, it's gone and those 9 months are relative to life in the
midst of eternity because that life occupies a space in eternity that is
occupied by that life with that DNA... for 9 months before the
chronological clock of time is arbitrarily started. Which means that
simply NOT counting the time there was life... is not the same as saying
life did not exist. One is true the other is not, you don't count that
time as life but life did exist and the fact that life is continuous
from conception to death and only one DNA is there during that life is
proof that it started at conception whether you count it or not. All it
means is you believe in FAKE science. Close your eyes and the world
disappears, that must mean that you traveled to somewhere else, that's
if we use the FAKE SCIENCE of why a fetus' is not a human life. All we
have to do is close our eyes and we don't see a life, but is it there in
that time or not.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 30, 2022, 3:31:36 PM6/30/22
to
On 6/30/22 3:03 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:08:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> in alt.atheism with message-id
> But live birth is required.
Turning 18 is required to have sex with an adult... or buy a gun or
vote... age is only a measurement it's NOT what we call life.
Being born is not the creation of life, Like puberty it's just another
stage in the human life that started at conception.
>
> Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
> to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
> remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
> child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
> the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
> to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>
> Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
> provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
> to be valid.
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:08:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> in alt.atheism with message-id
Turning 18 is required to have sex with an adult... or buy a gun or
vote... age is only a measurement it's NOT what we call life.
Being born is not the creation of life, Like puberty it's just another
stage in the human life that started at conception.
>
> Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
> to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
> remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
> child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
> the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
> to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>
> Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
> provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
> to be valid.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2022, 7:23:43 PM6/30/22
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:51:13 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
wrote:
There are too many safe, reliable methods of birth control available
for a woman to "accidentally" become pregnant with a child she doesn't
want. One might even say that any woman who gets pregnant, wanted to
get pregnant.
Swill
--
Lock 'im up!
wrote:
for a woman to "accidentally" become pregnant with a child she doesn't
want. One might even say that any woman who gets pregnant, wanted to
get pregnant.
Swill
--
Lock 'im up!
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 1, 2022, 10:40:30 AM7/1/22
to
you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
> Turning 18 is required to have sex with an adult... or buy a gun or
> vote... age is only a measurement it's NOT what we call life.
>
> stage in the human life that started at conception.
>
>>
>> Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
>> to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
>> remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
>> child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
>> the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
>> to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>>
>> Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
>> provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
>> to be valid.
>>
They depend upon life being present in the designated recipients of the
>
>>
>> Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
>> to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
>> remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
>> child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
>> the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
>> to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>>
>> Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
>> provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
>> to be valid.
>>
property NOT "birth" just life because birth is an age, it's age ZERO.
Because as long as the DNA of that person is alive inside or outside the
uterus and progressing through the human life cycle, the legal standing
of the document is valid and waiting to be triggered by the qualifier be
it birth(age ZERO) or be it the age of 18 years old.
Both require the one thing that is contiguous.... in the life cycle.
They require life be present and in the past determining the life or
death of the person inside the uterus was not a reality, and our laws
haven't caught-up to the medical technology that now sees into the
uterus and can be used to determine life and even health of teh fetus
without the birth of the human life inside the uterus making it possible
to know the person receiving the items and RIGHTS is alive and legally
able to take possession and/or exercise the RIGHT.
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2022, 11:12:48 AM7/1/22
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:03:12 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
>to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
>remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
>child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
>the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
>to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>
>Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
>provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
>to be valid.
In that case, it would make sense for the mother to inherit if the
child is miscarried.
wrote:
>Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
>to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
>remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
>child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
>the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
>to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>
>Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
>provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
>to be valid.
child is miscarried.
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2022, 11:13:34 AM7/1/22
to
On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:55:34 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>You destroy human life whenever you wash your hands.
Cite.
>Should
>all warts be protected since they are all human life?
They aren't.
wrote:
>You destroy human life whenever you wash your hands.
Cite.
>Should
>all warts be protected since they are all human life?
They aren't.
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2022, 11:18:56 AM7/1/22
to
On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:48:35 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>There is such a thing as rape,, as well as a change in
>circumstances during a pregnancy. Not to mention birth
>control failures,
And all those conditions are rare. I'm not against abortion in cases
of rape, incest or the mother's health.
I simply believe that abortion should not be used as birth control.
And if that birth control fails, plan to spend the next 18 years being
responsible for that hour of fucking.
>Why should a woman be forced to risk her life and health
>against her wishes?
>
>If you are not the one who is pregnant why is it any of your
>business?
Because it's my progeny at risk.
Yes, I do believe father's have rights.
wrote:
>There is such a thing as rape,, as well as a change in
>circumstances during a pregnancy. Not to mention birth
>control failures,
And all those conditions are rare. I'm not against abortion in cases
of rape, incest or the mother's health.
I simply believe that abortion should not be used as birth control.
And if that birth control fails, plan to spend the next 18 years being
responsible for that hour of fucking.
>Why should a woman be forced to risk her life and health
>against her wishes?
>
>If you are not the one who is pregnant why is it any of your
>business?
Because it's my progeny at risk.
Yes, I do believe father's have rights.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 1, 2022, 5:11:55 PM7/1/22
to
On 7/1/22 4:57 PM, Somebody too wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:56:53 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:18:21 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>
> Their wallet is.
>
The father's emotional health is involved.
--
-That's karma-
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:56:53 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:18:21 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <ft3ubh9s1cle1v79p...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:48:35 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is such a thing as rape,, as well as a change in
>>>> circumstances during a pregnancy. Not to mention birth
>>>> control failures,
>>>
>>> And all those conditions are rare. I'm not against abortion in cases
>>> of rape, incest or the mother's health.
>>
>> http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:48:35 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is such a thing as rape,, as well as a change in
>>>> circumstances during a pregnancy. Not to mention birth
>>>> control failures,
>>>
>>> And all those conditions are rare. I'm not against abortion in cases
>>> of rape, incest or the mother's health.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I simply believe that abortion should not be used as birth control.
>>> And if that birth control fails, plan to spend the next 18 years being
>>> responsible for that hour of fucking.
>>>
>>>> Why should a woman be forced to risk her life and health
>>>> against her wishes?
>>>>
>>>> If you are not the one who is pregnant why is it any of your
>>>> business?
>>>
>>> Because it's my progeny at risk.
>>
>> You are a relative?
>>
>>>
>>> I simply believe that abortion should not be used as birth control.
>>> And if that birth control fails, plan to spend the next 18 years being
>>> responsible for that hour of fucking.
>>>
>>>> Why should a woman be forced to risk her life and health
>>>> against her wishes?
>>>>
>>>> If you are not the one who is pregnant why is it any of your
>>>> business?
>>>
>>> Because it's my progeny at risk.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I do believe father's have rights.
>>
>> Their life and health are not involved.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do believe father's have rights.
>>
>>
> Their wallet is.
>
The father's emotional health is involved.
--
-That's karma-
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2022, 9:16:52 PM7/1/22
to
On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:56:53 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
wrote:
>>>If you are not the one who is pregnant why is it any of your
>>>business?
>>
>>Because it's my progeny at risk.
>
>You are a relative?
>>>business?
>>
>>Because it's my progeny at risk.
>
If I'm the father I am.
>>Yes, I do believe father's have rights.
>
>Their life and health are not involved.
So?
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2022, 9:19:02 PM7/1/22
to
On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:19:54 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>Which is unimportant compared to the risks a pregnant woman
>runs.
You are really a piece of work.
I HAVE ALREADY STATED PLAINLY THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE
CASE OF HEALTH RISK TO THE MOTHER. I HAVE STATED THIS POSITION MANY
TIMES.
YOU JUST WANT TO ARGUE.
*flush*
wrote:
>Which is unimportant compared to the risks a pregnant woman
>runs.
You are really a piece of work.
I HAVE ALREADY STATED PLAINLY THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE
CASE OF HEALTH RISK TO THE MOTHER. I HAVE STATED THIS POSITION MANY
TIMES.
YOU JUST WANT TO ARGUE.
*flush*
KWills
Jul 2, 2022, 4:57:08 AM7/2/22
to
On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
[...]
>You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
[...]
>You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
KWills
Jul 2, 2022, 4:57:20 AM7/2/22
to
law works at this time.
Don Kresch
Jul 2, 2022, 10:27:31 AM7/2/22
to
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:23:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
in blood:
And yet this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
in blood:
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 11:25:46 AM7/2/22
to
> On 2022-07-01 3:22 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>
>> Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
>>
>> Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
>
Then they can pay for it too... and there are limitations to accepted
surgery, especially "elective" surgeries. Those that kill excessive
numbers of patients are not legal for Doctors to perform.
Some drugs and some hormones are also illegal in some societies. And
Democrats try to force people to get some vaccines and coerce and entice
people to get some elective or un-necessary medical procedures and
treatments. They often get arrested for FRAUD when they do that.
Which means calling it TRANSGENDER surgery as if it changed Gender is
probably FRAUD because the surgery is elective and it's cosmetic NOT
transitioning to a different Gender... allowing a patient to believe
that it's a "gender" changing surgery is FRAUD because the DNA of the
person is still the same DNA as the GENDER THEY STARTED WITH... which
means it doesn't change the person's gender, it only superficially
changes their looks like getting RHINOPLASTY changes their nose and they
don't call that a TRANSGENDER operation because it changes the nose to
look more female. Or the eyes or the breast implants. All they change is
the look and a Kabuki dancer can do that without a doctor or surgery.
Which means the FDA should be putting Doctors in prison for FRAUD when
they do the surgery without full disclosure that it doesn't change the
gender and all it does is change the appearance and negatively impact
your health with un-necessary surgery and drugs you didn't need to stay
healthy.
You see there's that word health which is misrepresented in an Abortion
too... It doesn't help the health of the human life in the uterus. And
it has negative impacts on the woman's health that she might NOT
experience by going full term with the pregnancy... sometimes it's
necessary to save a mothers health but to not also discuss the negative
impacts completely like cancer and infertility and future pregnancy is
FRAUD and the people committing FRAUD deserve to be in prison for NOT
doing what the FDA requires of Prescription pills, full disclosure of
the physical and mental side effects...
And that actually goes for the vaccine producers too, they forgot that
getting an indemnity clause from the Federal Government doesn't cross
jurisdictions and it doesn't and can't cover intentional FRAUD and other
crimes. IT does cover the narrow laws that refer to the medical
malpractice where they accidentally with no fore knowledge caused some
problems by using the vaccine knowing it was high risk, so they still go
to prison for FRAUD if they lied about the damage or risks.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 12:03:36 PM7/2/22
to
On 7/1/22 8:51 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 16:49:10 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <F_idnbjGy_ZqGiL_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-07-01 3:35 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:03:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>
>>>> On 7/1/22 2:57 PM, Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:28:36 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <8sGdnewZU4dLoSL_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-07-01 10:58 a.m., Attila wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:04:45 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>> <h73ubh1fmumet5mbv...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enforced how and under what conditions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you need a blood transfusion to live can you force me to
>>>>>>> supply you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. There are no laws that require this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
>>>
>>> That would be an accident or a proactive action. It is not
>>> the same as requiring me to do anything.
>>>
>>>> you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
>>>> give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
>>>> you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.
>>>
>>> No law requires a person to provide a part of their body for
>>> the benefit of another person.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which would mean you can make your free choice that no law says you have
>>>> to do it, only they say if you don't we will be putting a needle in your
>>>> arm. It really doesn't seem like a free choice does it?
>>>
>>> Why would I be executed? What law would I have broken? In
>>> fact, if someone was injured and I attempted to help I would
>>> be open to a lawsuit for possibly making things worse.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I can sit and eat a hamburger while watching you starve to
>>>>> death and I have violated no law.
>>>>
>>>> True... starvation is a long slow process and not an emergency until
>>>> it's allowed to get to a critical point... but if you're stranded on a
>>>> wrecked boat and you do that, you might get some prison time for it.
>>>
>>> That would require specific circumstances - such as taking
>>> food provided for the benefit of the group at large. No law
>>> would require me to share what I personally had.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I can kill you for breaking into my house looking for
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The circumstances would be the defining part of that option.
>>>
>>> Not really. If I kill someone who broke into my house I am
>>> not breaking any law, especially if I was afraid of being
>>> attacked.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Self defense isn't a license to kill it's still illegal until you show
>>>> it was really self defense to the people doing the investigating and the
>>>> prosecution. In your house or where ever, murder is still illegal and
>>>> there's a fine line between murder and self defense.
>>>
>>> Where I alive there is a stand your ground law. If they are
>>> there without my permission they are dead meat.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might be someone you baited into the house with the intention of
>>>> murdering them for personal gain of some kind... A jury might not call
>>>> it self defense like they did for Rittenhouse who was running away and
>>>> was only confronting people attempting to kill him first as he struggled
>>>> to get away.
>>>
>>> He was not in his home confronting someone who broke in and
>>> was there without his permission.
>>>
>>> I took a gun safety course from a police officer who said
>>> he, his wife, and his two teen-aged children all slept with
>>> loaded pistols within reach and anyone who broke into his
>>> house would not live to leave it. All four of them were
>>> trained to shoot to kill.
>>>
>> what a terrible way to live and sometimes i'm too lazy to lock the doors
>
> He is a realest. He lives with reality on the job every
> day.
>
Ignoring the outside world is like playing Russian Roulette.
Being prepared for many kinds of disaster in a DEMOCRAT run world of
FAILED POLICIES, is no different than preparing for retirement in a
FUNCTIONING normal society where Democrats and LEFTISTS can't get a foot
in the door to hold power.
Why do people live that terrible life of panic to keep money safe for
retirement when money is just a tool for trading and eating each day.
My retirement overlapped with my preparing for Democrats failed
policies.... And it may yet come to be that my preparing for DEMOCRATS
FAILURE will be my only retirement when the DEMOCRATS destroy the
monetary system and the economy.
What was that old saying about putting all your eggs in on basket?
--
-That's karma-
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 16:49:10 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <F_idnbjGy_ZqGiL_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-07-01 3:35 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:03:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <viJvK.384214$J0r9....@fx11.iad> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/1/22 2:57 PM, Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:28:36 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <8sGdnewZU4dLoSL_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-07-01 10:58 a.m., Attila wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:04:45 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>> <h73ubh1fmumet5mbv...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enforced how and under what conditions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you need a blood transfusion to live can you force me to
>>>>>>> supply you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. There are no laws that require this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
>>>
>>> That would be an accident or a proactive action. It is not
>>> the same as requiring me to do anything.
>>>
>>>> you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
>>>> give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
>>>> you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.
>>>
>>> No law requires a person to provide a part of their body for
>>> the benefit of another person.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which would mean you can make your free choice that no law says you have
>>>> to do it, only they say if you don't we will be putting a needle in your
>>>> arm. It really doesn't seem like a free choice does it?
>>>
>>> Why would I be executed? What law would I have broken? In
>>> fact, if someone was injured and I attempted to help I would
>>> be open to a lawsuit for possibly making things worse.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I can sit and eat a hamburger while watching you starve to
>>>>> death and I have violated no law.
>>>>
>>>> True... starvation is a long slow process and not an emergency until
>>>> it's allowed to get to a critical point... but if you're stranded on a
>>>> wrecked boat and you do that, you might get some prison time for it.
>>>
>>> That would require specific circumstances - such as taking
>>> food provided for the benefit of the group at large. No law
>>> would require me to share what I personally had.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I can kill you for breaking into my house looking for
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The circumstances would be the defining part of that option.
>>>
>>> Not really. If I kill someone who broke into my house I am
>>> not breaking any law, especially if I was afraid of being
>>> attacked.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Self defense isn't a license to kill it's still illegal until you show
>>>> it was really self defense to the people doing the investigating and the
>>>> prosecution. In your house or where ever, murder is still illegal and
>>>> there's a fine line between murder and self defense.
>>>
>>> Where I alive there is a stand your ground law. If they are
>>> there without my permission they are dead meat.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might be someone you baited into the house with the intention of
>>>> murdering them for personal gain of some kind... A jury might not call
>>>> it self defense like they did for Rittenhouse who was running away and
>>>> was only confronting people attempting to kill him first as he struggled
>>>> to get away.
>>>
>>> He was not in his home confronting someone who broke in and
>>> was there without his permission.
>>>
>>> I took a gun safety course from a police officer who said
>>> he, his wife, and his two teen-aged children all slept with
>>> loaded pistols within reach and anyone who broke into his
>>> house would not live to leave it. All four of them were
>>> trained to shoot to kill.
>>>
>> what a terrible way to live and sometimes i'm too lazy to lock the doors
>
> He is a realest. He lives with reality on the job every
> day.
>
Ignoring the outside world is like playing Russian Roulette.
Being prepared for many kinds of disaster in a DEMOCRAT run world of
FAILED POLICIES, is no different than preparing for retirement in a
FUNCTIONING normal society where Democrats and LEFTISTS can't get a foot
in the door to hold power.
Why do people live that terrible life of panic to keep money safe for
retirement when money is just a tool for trading and eating each day.
My retirement overlapped with my preparing for Democrats failed
policies.... And it may yet come to be that my preparing for DEMOCRATS
FAILURE will be my only retirement when the DEMOCRATS destroy the
monetary system and the economy.
What was that old saying about putting all your eggs in on basket?
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 12:56:11 PM7/2/22
to
On 7/1/22 9:14 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:12:57 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>>> A person can do things a fetus cannot because a fetus, though it has
>>> rights, is unable exercise those rights.
>>>
>>
>> A one minute old baby has certain legal rights that exist
>> even though it is unable to exercise those rights. If the
>> baby dies immediately the results are totally different than
>> if no live birth ever occurred.
>
> We're not talking about babies, we're talking about fetuses.
>
> You're trying to change the subject *again*.
>
> Swill
>
There seems to be confusion as to what is a CIVIL LIBERTY and what is a
"RIGHT" where the word "RIGHT" is often referring to
unalienable/inalienable RIGHTS that can be enumerated or NOT be
enumerated and have the power of exclusive delegation as those
enumerated by the Constitution. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and
bear arms or the RIGHT to life, liberty and property.
The place there are powers delegated is by the Constitution and those
NOT delegated don't exist as United States Government powers. The RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE says it's NOT issued to the United States or the
individual States. While the States powers and People's RIGHTS are those
not delegated to the United States Government. and the PEOPLES RIGHT are
those also denied to the States legislatures, by things like due process
or the statement "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", they deny the power to be
legislated by the States and they don't create a delegated power of the
United States Government.
Civil Liberties are created by the Government and are NOT unalienable
RIGHTS, the government created Civil Liberties and the Government can
take them away or regulate them, because they are privileges from the
Government. An unalienable RIGHT was endowed by your creation, you have
inherent HUMAN RIGHTS that existed at the moment you became a human life.
The age of the baby starts at conception and at one minute past
conception that life is one minute old. The fact the United States
starts counting when you're born has to do with citizenship and it being
created by the United States Government at birth. Citizenship is a
Civil Liberty NOT and unalienable RIGHT. It doesn't define HUMAN LIFE
beginning at that moment. Birth is delegated by the United States
Government as defining the beginning of your CIVIL LIBERTIES and the
liberty/right to vote and to parts of government legal code like
drinking alcohol. It's NOT a Philosophical description of the beginning
of human life. Unfortunately those RIGHTS and CIVIL LIBERTIES are being
confused as the same thing but like FEDERAL and STATE jurisdiction is
separate so are RIGHTS and civil liberties different.
The RIGHT to life transcends the legal code and the Constitution and
falls to HUMAN or UNALIENABLE RIGHTS endowed by your creation. The
simple fact you exist means you have the RIGHT to life. The Government
has no voice in that and didn't give you that RIGH, and like Slavery,
it's NOT for Government to decide it's only for you to choose to
surrender your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS by violating others unalienable RIGHTS
such as the RIGHT to life or liberty... which is why we have to decide
whether it's self defense or murder and we don't trust the Government to
do that, we trust twelve in the jury box to do that. And liberty
meaning freedom or slavery and if you enslave someone it violates your
UNALIENABLE RIGHT to liberty. Which is why you have to commit a crime
and follow due process for a jury to convict you before you are denied
your own liberty for having denied it to others.
Which is also why due process is required in the Constitution and why
abortion as self defense to save the mother is the only way to legally
kill a human life (baby) in the uterus.
--
-That's karma-
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:12:57 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>>> A person can do things a fetus cannot because a fetus, though it has
>>> rights, is unable exercise those rights.
>>>
>>
>> A one minute old baby has certain legal rights that exist
>> even though it is unable to exercise those rights. If the
>> baby dies immediately the results are totally different than
>> if no live birth ever occurred.
>
> We're not talking about babies, we're talking about fetuses.
>
> You're trying to change the subject *again*.
>
> Swill
>
There seems to be confusion as to what is a CIVIL LIBERTY and what is a
"RIGHT" where the word "RIGHT" is often referring to
unalienable/inalienable RIGHTS that can be enumerated or NOT be
enumerated and have the power of exclusive delegation as those
enumerated by the Constitution. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and
bear arms or the RIGHT to life, liberty and property.
The place there are powers delegated is by the Constitution and those
NOT delegated don't exist as United States Government powers. The RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE says it's NOT issued to the United States or the
individual States. While the States powers and People's RIGHTS are those
not delegated to the United States Government. and the PEOPLES RIGHT are
those also denied to the States legislatures, by things like due process
or the statement "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", they deny the power to be
legislated by the States and they don't create a delegated power of the
United States Government.
Civil Liberties are created by the Government and are NOT unalienable
RIGHTS, the government created Civil Liberties and the Government can
take them away or regulate them, because they are privileges from the
Government. An unalienable RIGHT was endowed by your creation, you have
inherent HUMAN RIGHTS that existed at the moment you became a human life.
The age of the baby starts at conception and at one minute past
conception that life is one minute old. The fact the United States
starts counting when you're born has to do with citizenship and it being
created by the United States Government at birth. Citizenship is a
Civil Liberty NOT and unalienable RIGHT. It doesn't define HUMAN LIFE
beginning at that moment. Birth is delegated by the United States
Government as defining the beginning of your CIVIL LIBERTIES and the
liberty/right to vote and to parts of government legal code like
drinking alcohol. It's NOT a Philosophical description of the beginning
of human life. Unfortunately those RIGHTS and CIVIL LIBERTIES are being
confused as the same thing but like FEDERAL and STATE jurisdiction is
separate so are RIGHTS and civil liberties different.
The RIGHT to life transcends the legal code and the Constitution and
falls to HUMAN or UNALIENABLE RIGHTS endowed by your creation. The
simple fact you exist means you have the RIGHT to life. The Government
has no voice in that and didn't give you that RIGH, and like Slavery,
it's NOT for Government to decide it's only for you to choose to
surrender your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS by violating others unalienable RIGHTS
such as the RIGHT to life or liberty... which is why we have to decide
whether it's self defense or murder and we don't trust the Government to
do that, we trust twelve in the jury box to do that. And liberty
meaning freedom or slavery and if you enslave someone it violates your
UNALIENABLE RIGHT to liberty. Which is why you have to commit a crime
and follow due process for a jury to convict you before you are denied
your own liberty for having denied it to others.
Which is also why due process is required in the Constitution and why
abortion as self defense to save the mother is the only way to legally
kill a human life (baby) in the uterus.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 1:30:52 PM7/2/22
to
On 7/1/22 9:39 PM, Somebody too wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:08:46 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:44:21 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:03:51 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:00:29 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing there about a fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>> we the people
>>>>
>>>> A fetus isn't a person.
>>>>
>>> Define "person"
>>
>> Someone with a personality.
>>
> Define personality.
>
Unique DNA and environmental attributes.... creating a person that is
uniquely different in time and space who will never be duplicated
because the combination of DNA and environmental and personal
experiences changes them and allows them the experience of life within
in that unique environment.
It starts at conception when the two different parents DNA combinations
come together to create one person and then all the chemical make up of
food drugs and other inputs begin to change their cellular make-up and
cellular memory from that first cell and it changes with ... and it
compounds and progressively changes the person until the day they die.
Ever wonder why identical twins or triplets have different personalities
and may look alike but really aren't?
"Twins can be either monozygotic ('identical'), meaning that they
develop from one zygote, which splits and forms two embryos, or
dizygotic ('non-identical' or 'fraternal'), meaning that each twin
develops from a separate egg "
The environmental inputs and that's why drug addicted moms have Crack
babies and healthy moms have healthy babies. It's the environmental
inputs that change the human life in the uterus while it's in the uterus
and that changes it for life and can damage it for life. But it may
cause mental issues while in the uterus making it a person because it's
personality is being shaped by the parents and the life around it and
that all contributed to the personality from that point of conception
on... for the rest of the embryo/fetus' or babies life which includes
after it's born and "called a PERSON BY DEMOCRATS" who claimed it wasn't
a person when they kill them.
Welcome to being a DEMOCRAT... till death do you part.
--
-That's karma-
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:08:46 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:44:21 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:03:51 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:00:29 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing there about a fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>> we the people
>>>>
>>>> A fetus isn't a person.
>>>>
>>> Define "person"
>>
>> Someone with a personality.
>>
> Define personality.
>
Unique DNA and environmental attributes.... creating a person that is
uniquely different in time and space who will never be duplicated
because the combination of DNA and environmental and personal
experiences changes them and allows them the experience of life within
in that unique environment.
It starts at conception when the two different parents DNA combinations
come together to create one person and then all the chemical make up of
food drugs and other inputs begin to change their cellular make-up and
cellular memory from that first cell and it changes with ... and it
compounds and progressively changes the person until the day they die.
Ever wonder why identical twins or triplets have different personalities
and may look alike but really aren't?
"Twins can be either monozygotic ('identical'), meaning that they
develop from one zygote, which splits and forms two embryos, or
dizygotic ('non-identical' or 'fraternal'), meaning that each twin
develops from a separate egg "
The environmental inputs and that's why drug addicted moms have Crack
babies and healthy moms have healthy babies. It's the environmental
inputs that change the human life in the uterus while it's in the uterus
and that changes it for life and can damage it for life. But it may
cause mental issues while in the uterus making it a person because it's
personality is being shaped by the parents and the life around it and
that all contributed to the personality from that point of conception
on... for the rest of the embryo/fetus' or babies life which includes
after it's born and "called a PERSON BY DEMOCRATS" who claimed it wasn't
a person when they kill them.
Welcome to being a DEMOCRAT... till death do you part.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 2:01:36 PM7/2/22
to
On 7/2/22 12:54 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:18:27 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> Every pregnancy is a risk to the woman involved.
>
Compounding the risk of pregnancy with abortion and unknown cancer and
other risks like allergic reactions and bleeding then those risk NOT
just the mother but it straight-up attempts to kill the baby that if the
mother knew she was going to die might decide to save the baby and
accept her own death at the time of birth. So you know the risk to baby
is 99% in an abortion. Would the mom kill the baby if she knew she would
die at the babies birth or at the abortion?
Would she want to leave somone behind by saving the baby holding out
until the birth?
--
-That's karma-
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:18:27 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id
>
Compounding the risk of pregnancy with abortion and unknown cancer and
other risks like allergic reactions and bleeding then those risk NOT
just the mother but it straight-up attempts to kill the baby that if the
mother knew she was going to die might decide to save the baby and
accept her own death at the time of birth. So you know the risk to baby
is 99% in an abortion. Would the mom kill the baby if she knew she would
die at the babies birth or at the abortion?
Would she want to leave somone behind by saving the baby holding out
until the birth?
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 2:05:00 PM7/2/22
to
On 7/2/22 4:57 AM, KWills wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>
> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>
You want to kill it, you have prove it.
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>
> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>
Human Life doesn't need to prove it exists, you need to prove it doesn't.
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 2, 2022, 2:41:09 PM7/2/22
to
On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:04:30 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:02:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <v46vbh1pesih7cmll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>> talking about a right to life in the context of not killing another
>>> person.
>>>
>>> Stick to that, ok?
>>
>> I am. A woman is being forced to provide her body as a life
>> support system to another person if you consider a fetus as
>> a person. She should not be forced to do this.
>>
If you are never going to get pregnant then another remedy is at hand
called tubal ligation. Or any number of other non surgical birth
controls...
>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
inconvenient.
You have to feed your baby after you give birth... or you go to prison
for neglect when they die.
>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>> is easily remedied.
How was that medical condition created? Was it the fault of others, what
if we have to scrape her off the pavement and take her to the emergency
room and hook her up to life support regardless of the question of who
pays for it other than her? Is that my responsibility or hers? But yet
the law says that I have give away an HOUR of my time at work or
hundreds of hours in taxes to pay for it? Is her 9 months of time worth
more than my nine months of time to pay taxes?
> No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.
Well it's NOT force it's respecting the RIGHT of others... to their own
life isn't it? I have my time confiscated as tax and she has hers
confiscated as a tax in kind, being gestation vessel to the next
generation of tax payers.
Or you could apply that same scenario to my paying taxes and/or her
paying taxes for kids to go to school, if she has an abortion why is she
paying money and losing hours of her labor for her to educate those
children that aren't even hers because she killed her kids before they
were born and produced no new taxpayers...?
So why does she pay the school tax if she can't be forced to do so by
confiscation of her labor or to gestate a child for paying future taxes.
What is the difference when both school and pregnancy are at their core
costing her time/labor, one is the time to work to pay the tax and the
other is time to carry a life in her uterus which as a surrogate, could
create a good taxable income to pay for children to attend Government
schools. I suggest that the woman gets a tax credit for giving birth. It
is only fair.
It looks to me that what goes around comes around and by taxing me for
schools I don't have kids in, the Government is bleeding me of my
time/labor converted to taxes, which makes me think that if her
time/labor is consumed by Government laws or mandates that she is no
longer special is she.
She's *just another battery in the MATRIX*
Welcome to reality...
--
-That's karma-
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:04:30 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:02:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <v46vbh1pesih7cmll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:35:42 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
>>>>
>>>> That would be an accident or a proactive action. It is not
>>>> the same as requiring me to do anything.
>>>>
>>>>> you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
>>>>> give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
>>>>> you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.
>>>>
>>>> No law requires a person to provide a part of their body for
>>>> the benefit of another person.
>>>
>>> Congratulations! You successfully changed the subject. We were
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:35:42 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
>>>>
>>>> That would be an accident or a proactive action. It is not
>>>> the same as requiring me to do anything.
>>>>
>>>>> you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
>>>>> give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
>>>>> you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.
>>>>
>>>> No law requires a person to provide a part of their body for
>>>> the benefit of another person.
>>>
>>> talking about a right to life in the context of not killing another
>>> person.
>>>
>>> Stick to that, ok?
>>
>> I am. A woman is being forced to provide her body as a life
>> support system to another person if you consider a fetus as
>> a person. She should not be forced to do this.
>>
If you are never going to get pregnant then another remedy is at hand
called tubal ligation. Or any number of other non surgical birth
controls...
>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
inconvenient.
You have to feed your baby after you give birth... or you go to prison
for neglect when they die.
>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>> is easily remedied.
How was that medical condition created? Was it the fault of others, what
if we have to scrape her off the pavement and take her to the emergency
room and hook her up to life support regardless of the question of who
pays for it other than her? Is that my responsibility or hers? But yet
the law says that I have give away an HOUR of my time at work or
hundreds of hours in taxes to pay for it? Is her 9 months of time worth
more than my nine months of time to pay taxes?
> No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.
Well it's NOT force it's respecting the RIGHT of others... to their own
life isn't it? I have my time confiscated as tax and she has hers
confiscated as a tax in kind, being gestation vessel to the next
generation of tax payers.
Or you could apply that same scenario to my paying taxes and/or her
paying taxes for kids to go to school, if she has an abortion why is she
paying money and losing hours of her labor for her to educate those
children that aren't even hers because she killed her kids before they
were born and produced no new taxpayers...?
So why does she pay the school tax if she can't be forced to do so by
confiscation of her labor or to gestate a child for paying future taxes.
What is the difference when both school and pregnancy are at their core
costing her time/labor, one is the time to work to pay the tax and the
other is time to carry a life in her uterus which as a surrogate, could
create a good taxable income to pay for children to attend Government
schools. I suggest that the woman gets a tax credit for giving birth. It
is only fair.
It looks to me that what goes around comes around and by taxing me for
schools I don't have kids in, the Government is bleeding me of my
time/labor converted to taxes, which makes me think that if her
time/labor is consumed by Government laws or mandates that she is no
longer special is she.
She's *just another battery in the MATRIX*
Welcome to reality...
--
-That's karma-
Don Kresch
Jul 2, 2022, 5:18:18 PM7/2/22
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:57:05 -0700, KWills <a@b.c> scrawled in blood:
>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
><NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>
> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
Oh, it's alive and is human.
But then: so is the woman.
The real question is: who owns the womb.
Do
>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
><NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>
> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
But then: so is the woman.
The real question is: who owns the womb.
Do
Don Kresch
Jul 2, 2022, 5:20:24 PM7/2/22
to
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:01:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 12:54 AM, Attila wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:18:27 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <o37vbhtt87isjspf0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:19:54 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is unimportant compared to the risks a pregnant woman
>>>> runs.
>>>
>>> You are really a piece of work.
>>>
>>> I HAVE ALREADY STATED PLAINLY THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE
>>> CASE OF HEALTH RISK TO THE MOTHER. I HAVE STATED THIS POSITION MANY
>>> TIMES.
>>>
>>> YOU JUST WANT TO ARGUE.
>>>
>>> *flush*
>>>
>>> Swill
>>
>> Every pregnancy is a risk to the woman involved.
>>
>Compounding the risk of pregnancy with abortion and unknown cancer
You know, I've never actually seen even ONE study to back that
up.
>and
>other risks like allergic reactions and bleeding then those risk NOT
>just the mother but it straight-up attempts to kill the baby that if the
>mother knew she was going to die might decide to save the baby and
>accept her own death at the time of birth.
Ah, the "noble sacrifice" lunacy.
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 12:54 AM, Attila wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:18:27 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <o37vbhtt87isjspf0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:19:54 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is unimportant compared to the risks a pregnant woman
>>>> runs.
>>>
>>> You are really a piece of work.
>>>
>>> I HAVE ALREADY STATED PLAINLY THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE
>>> CASE OF HEALTH RISK TO THE MOTHER. I HAVE STATED THIS POSITION MANY
>>> TIMES.
>>>
>>> YOU JUST WANT TO ARGUE.
>>>
>>> *flush*
>>>
>>> Swill
>>
>> Every pregnancy is a risk to the woman involved.
>>
>Compounding the risk of pregnancy with abortion and unknown cancer
up.
>and
>other risks like allergic reactions and bleeding then those risk NOT
>just the mother but it straight-up attempts to kill the baby that if the
>mother knew she was going to die might decide to save the baby and
>accept her own death at the time of birth.
Don Kresch
Jul 2, 2022, 5:24:22 PM7/2/22
to
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>
>I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>inconvenient.
Lovely strawman.
>You have to feed your baby after you give birth
No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.
>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>> is easily remedied.
>
>How was that medical condition created?
How was a broken bone playing football created?
Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>
>I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>inconvenient.
>You have to feed your baby after you give birth
>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>> is easily remedied.
>
>How was that medical condition created?
Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 2, 2022, 8:14:28 PM7/2/22
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:27:29 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
subconscious, act.
Swill
--
Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:23:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
>in blood:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:51:13 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>><NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>>An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>>>>where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>>>>establish having been duly convicted.
>>>
>>> The woman is not a slave, or to be enslaved as "punishment"
>>>for getting pregnant. She does not lose her self-ownership when she
>>>becomes pregnant.
>>
>>There are too many safe, reliable methods of birth control available
>>for a woman to "accidentally" become pregnant with a child she doesn't
>>want. One might even say that any woman who gets pregnant, wanted to
>>get pregnant.
>
> And yet this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
It does in the sense that pregnancy is a deliberate, if sometimes
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:23:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
>in blood:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:51:13 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>><NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>>An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>>>>where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>>>>establish having been duly convicted.
>>>
>>> The woman is not a slave, or to be enslaved as "punishment"
>>>for getting pregnant. She does not lose her self-ownership when she
>>>becomes pregnant.
>>
>>There are too many safe, reliable methods of birth control available
>>for a woman to "accidentally" become pregnant with a child she doesn't
>>want. One might even say that any woman who gets pregnant, wanted to
>>get pregnant.
>
> And yet this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
subconscious, act.
Swill
--
Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."
Don Kresch
Jul 2, 2022, 8:47:28 PM7/2/22
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 20:13:50 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
in blood:
>On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:27:29 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:23:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
>>in blood:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:51:13 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>><NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>>>>
>>>>>An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>>>>>where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>>>>>establish having been duly convicted.
>>>>
>>>> The woman is not a slave, or to be enslaved as "punishment"
>>>>for getting pregnant. She does not lose her self-ownership when she
>>>>becomes pregnant.
>>>
>>>There are too many safe, reliable methods of birth control available
>>>for a woman to "accidentally" become pregnant with a child she doesn't
>>>want. One might even say that any woman who gets pregnant, wanted to
>>>get pregnant.
>>
>> And yet this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
>It does in the sense that pregnancy is a deliberate, if sometimes
>subconscious, act.
And yet that STILL has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:27:29 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:23:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
>>in blood:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:51:13 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>><NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>>>>
>>>>>An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>>>>>where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>>>>>establish having been duly convicted.
>>>>
>>>> The woman is not a slave, or to be enslaved as "punishment"
>>>>for getting pregnant. She does not lose her self-ownership when she
>>>>becomes pregnant.
>>>
>>>There are too many safe, reliable methods of birth control available
>>>for a woman to "accidentally" become pregnant with a child she doesn't
>>>want. One might even say that any woman who gets pregnant, wanted to
>>>get pregnant.
>>
>> And yet this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
>It does in the sense that pregnancy is a deliberate, if sometimes
>subconscious, act.
Jay Santos
Jul 2, 2022, 11:00:12 PM7/2/22
to
On 6/30/2022 4:51 AM, Don Crachat, the asshole not-an-anarchist and fake atheist
and burrito-roller, mumbled and lied:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>
>> An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>> where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>> establish having been duly convicted.
>
> The woman is not a slave, or to be enslaved as "punishment"
Red herring.
and burrito-roller, mumbled and lied:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:25:48 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>
>> An embryo is not a "slave" or to be killed as punishment for a crime
>> where the party shall have been "duly convicted". Without due process to
>> establish having been duly convicted.
>
> The woman is not a slave, or to be enslaved as "punishment"
KWills
Jul 3, 2022, 7:52:13 AM7/3/22
to
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:04:58 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>On 7/2/22 4:57 AM, KWills wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>>
>> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>
>You want to kill it, you have prove it.
>
What do you claim I want to kill? And how would I go about
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>On 7/2/22 4:57 AM, KWills wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>>
>> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>
>You want to kill it, you have prove it.
>
proving I *want* to kill something? What would your extremely low
intellect accept as evidence, or proof, that, according to you, I
*want* to kill something?
>Human Life doesn't need to prove it exists, you need to prove it doesn't.
human life. You ran away from the proof each and every time it was
presented.
Human life can be said to exists at around the seventh month
mark, since the chances of the fetus being able to survive outside of
the uterus exists. However, applicable law states human life begins
after a live birth.
If you want, I'll post the applicable statutory laws. It will be
the same as all the previous times, of course. Which means you will
run away if I do so.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 3, 2022, 11:49:34 AM7/3/22
to
life in the uterus or both?
Because those who don't own their life and have their life protected
like the woman or the baby, would be a slave wouldn't they?
SO what is the Human life in the uterus, is that life a piece of
property? And then there's the question of owning a human life being
slavery and so when you support slavery or women being chattel or a
human life being a slave, is it a violation of the 13th Amendment?
Amendment XIII
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.
And the 14th which says *nor shall any State deprive any person of life*
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life* ,
*liberty, or property, without due process of law* ; *nor deny to any*
*person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws* .
A human life in a uterus is in the jurisdiction of the United States
apparently when it's an ILLEGAL ALIEN BEING BORN HERE. Which puts a bit
of sand in the gears when you try to abort that protected person that
wants to come out of the uterus to be a U.S. citizen. They tell us that
human life was here and can't be extradited and yet at the same time the
Democrats tell us that the BABY and the mother carrying the baby have
RIGHTS, suppose that we deport the life in the uterus and by connection
it means the mother has to be deported... the human life in the uterus
has NO RIGHTS AT ALL and can be deported can't it?
It means Biden and Democrats are supposed to be deporting all illegal
human life in the uterus of another human life. Why aren't they doing
that?
--
-That's karma-
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 3, 2022, 12:37:15 PM7/3/22
to
On 7/2/22 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>
>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>
>> I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>> inconvenient.
>
> Lovely strawman.
>
>
>> You have to feed your baby after you give birth
>
> No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.
>
Yes you do because if you give-up the parental roll you are no longer
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>
>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>
>> I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>> inconvenient.
>
> Lovely strawman.
>
>
>> You have to feed your baby after you give birth
>
> No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.
>
able to call it your baby. It's NO longer your responsibility so you
don't have to feed a baby that isn't yours and you can let other babies
starve... but I think they can also arrest you for allowing other babies
to starve while you watch.
It starts to get into crimes against humanity... or mental illness issues.
>
>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>>> is easily remedied.
>>
>> How was that medical condition created?
>
> How was a broken bone playing football created?
for you to play the game?
Were you forced to be there? Are the injuries life threatening, is there
a reason to risk surgery to improve the outcome? What if the Doctor says
I can go in and grind on the bone and do multiple surgeries on that bone
to fit it back to be the same and add more bone where it is too
splintered but you'll never throw a ball again and I'll have to take the
piece of bone from your leg which will weaken the leg bone.
What you have is a lot of risk and the broken bone can never be
"unbroken" so it will always be too weak to perform at 100% for sports.
Like a woman trying to undo a pregnancy, it may solve some issued like
feeding a baby and create others and the woman did make the decision to
play the game, and if she didn't then that's a crime and time for prison
for someone but killing a baby doesn't make the crime go away or reverse
the broken persons injuries.
Once again you have a case of NOT being able to unring the bell, someone
made a decision and they end up paying for it and the victim in a crime
can't always be made whole by convicting the guilty party when that
decision is made for the woman. But again the human life in the uterus
isn't the guilty party and is essentially a victim the same as the woman
that was attacked. If we kill the life in the uterus why wouldn't we
kill the woman too, which is what the Cults of the RADICALIZED MUSLIMS
DO. A woman who is raped is stoned to death.
They abort the baby by killing all the victims? Is that what Democrats
want, yes radicalized Democrat feminists and abortionists are radical
LGBTQ cult members and yes they do threaten the Supreme Court Justices
and the rest of us like the radical Muslim cults do....
It sound's like Democrats are traveling down the same path as the Muslim
Terrorists.
I say it's NOT that the woman has to raise the child but killing it in
the uterus is NOT erasing that the human life was created. That human
life did live on planet earth and you can only kill that HUMAN LIFE
once. But you have to live it every day for the rest of your life if you
kill a human life.
>
> Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
> can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.
sports injury could be fixed I said some create more risk than the
repair is worth and some can't be fixed and some simply increase side
effects of things like cancer or sterility and create new problems and
that killing a human life that was NOT guilty of a crime will never
unring the bell and the damage done by the crime committed against them
or make the fact they they willingly created a life go away. SO yes I
say killing the human life that is innocent is an injury that can't be
fixed, just like all murder creates injuries that can't be fixed because
you can never bring the dead back from that. Neither the physical or
mental damage from pregnancy can be fixed like it never happened because
it did and attempting to erase it by killing the human life in he uterus
only compounds the injury both mentally and physically.
*Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*
Of course you could stone to death the mother and human life in the
uterus. If no one really wants the pregnancy.
--
-That's karma-
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 3, 2022, 12:58:00 PM7/3/22
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 19:47:26 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
Yeah, actually, it does. You wrote about women getting pregnant and
what rights they had. I wrote about there being no reason for a woman
to get pregnant in the first place.
what rights they had. I wrote about there being no reason for a woman
to get pregnant in the first place.
Don Kresch
Jul 3, 2022, 8:13:20 PM7/3/22
to
Don Kresch
Jul 3, 2022, 8:15:36 PM7/3/22
to
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:49:31 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 5:18 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:57:05 -0700, KWills <a@b.c> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>>>
>>> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>>
>> Oh, it's alive and is human.
>>
>> But then: so is the woman.
>>
>> The real question is: who owns the womb.
>>
>
>NO the real question is who owns their own life, the woman or the human
>life in the uterus or both?
NO!
The real question is "who owns the womb".
Let's assume for the moment that the fertilized egg has rights
(it doesn't, as rights cannot, by definition, obtain until birth).
Let's further stipulate that the woman has rights.
Who owns the womb?
This is the question, for all rights are, in fact, property
rights.
Don
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 5:18 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:57:05 -0700, KWills <a@b.c> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>>>
>>> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>>
>> Oh, it's alive and is human.
>>
>> But then: so is the woman.
>>
>> The real question is: who owns the womb.
>>
>
>NO the real question is who owns their own life, the woman or the human
>life in the uterus or both?
The real question is "who owns the womb".
(it doesn't, as rights cannot, by definition, obtain until birth).
Let's further stipulate that the woman has rights.
Who owns the womb?
This is the question, for all rights are, in fact, property
rights.
Don
Don Kresch
Jul 3, 2022, 8:25:44 PM7/3/22
to
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:37:12 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
this is how reality works.
>you do because if you give-up the parental roll you are no longer
>able to call it your baby.
Yeah, you are, from a genetics point of view.
Ooooooooooooooooooh, that just flew by your head, didn't it.
>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>>>> is easily remedied.
>>>
>>> How was that medical condition created?
>>
>> How was a broken bone playing football created?
>
>Accidental or by force by other players. Could be either way, who chose
>for you to play the game?
That's not actually relevant.
>
>Were you forced to be there? Are the injuries life threatening, is there
>a reason to risk surgery to improve the outcome? What if the Doctor says
>I can go in and grind on the bone and do multiple surgeries on that bone
>to fit it back to be the same and add more bone where it is too
>splintered but you'll never throw a ball again and I'll have to take the
>piece of bone from your leg which will weaken the leg bone.
None of that is relevant.
>
>What you have is a lot of risk and the broken bone can never be
>"unbroken" so it will always be too weak to perform at 100% for sports.
Not relevant.
Want to know what is relevant?
My self-ownership.
>Like a woman trying to undo a pregnancy, it may solve some issued like
>feeding a baby and create others and the woman did make the decision to
>play the game, and if she didn't then that's a crime and time for prison
>for someone but killing a baby doesn't make the crime go away or reverse
>the broken persons injuries.
It's an eviction. Or don't you believe in property rights.
Oh, looks like you don't believe in property rights.
Communist.
>>
>> Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
>> can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.
>
>I got to this point and see I was consistent
Nope, you were a hypocrite.
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>On 7/2/22 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>>
>>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>>
>>> I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>>> inconvenient.
>>
>> Lovely strawman.
>>
>>
>>> You have to feed your baby after you give birth
>>
>> No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.
>>
>
>Yes
No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship. Seriously:
>On 7/2/22 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>>
>>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>>
>>> I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>>> inconvenient.
>>
>> Lovely strawman.
>>
>>
>>> You have to feed your baby after you give birth
>>
>> No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.
>>
>
>Yes
this is how reality works.
>you do because if you give-up the parental roll you are no longer
>able to call it your baby.
Ooooooooooooooooooh, that just flew by your head, didn't it.
>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>>>> is easily remedied.
>>>
>>> How was that medical condition created?
>>
>> How was a broken bone playing football created?
>
>Accidental or by force by other players. Could be either way, who chose
>for you to play the game?
>
>Were you forced to be there? Are the injuries life threatening, is there
>a reason to risk surgery to improve the outcome? What if the Doctor says
>I can go in and grind on the bone and do multiple surgeries on that bone
>to fit it back to be the same and add more bone where it is too
>splintered but you'll never throw a ball again and I'll have to take the
>piece of bone from your leg which will weaken the leg bone.
>
>What you have is a lot of risk and the broken bone can never be
>"unbroken" so it will always be too weak to perform at 100% for sports.
Want to know what is relevant?
My self-ownership.
>Like a woman trying to undo a pregnancy, it may solve some issued like
>feeding a baby and create others and the woman did make the decision to
>play the game, and if she didn't then that's a crime and time for prison
>for someone but killing a baby doesn't make the crime go away or reverse
>the broken persons injuries.
Oh, looks like you don't believe in property rights.
Communist.
>>
>> Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
>> can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.
>
>I got to this point and see I was consistent
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 4, 2022, 1:23:16 PM7/4/22
to
On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 19:13:19 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
Yeah, it does. Tell your English instructor you could use some
tutoring in following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
tutoring in following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
Don Kresch
Jul 4, 2022, 4:30:55 PM7/4/22
to
On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 13:22:37 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
No, it actually doesn't.
Tell your English instructor you could use some tutoring in
following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
Get the feeling that this conversation isn't going to go the
way you expected?
Tell your English instructor you could use some tutoring in
following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
way you expected?
governo...@gmail.com
Jul 4, 2022, 6:34:11 PM7/4/22
to
On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:30:53 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> Tell your English instructor you could use some tutoring in
>following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
>
> Get the feeling that this conversation isn't going to go the
>way you expected?
Scream, "BLUE!" again for us, Donkey.
wrote:
> Tell your English instructor you could use some tutoring in
>following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
>
> Get the feeling that this conversation isn't going to go the
>way you expected?
Don Kresch
Jul 4, 2022, 6:55:47 PM7/4/22
to
On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 18:33:32 -0400, governo...@gmail.com scrawled
in blood:
>On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:30:53 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> Tell your English instructor you could use some tutoring in
>>following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
>>
>> Get the feeling that this conversation isn't going to go the
>>way you expected?
>
>Scream, "BLUE!" again for us, Donkey.
And THERE'S the meltdown, right on schedule.
in blood:
>On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:30:53 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> Tell your English instructor you could use some tutoring in
>>following the twists and turns of adult conversation.
>>
>> Get the feeling that this conversation isn't going to go the
>>way you expected?
>
>Scream, "BLUE!" again for us, Donkey.
0 new messages