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

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/29/2012 6:28 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:Kqd3r.99402$5f3....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 2/28/2012 4:45 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> message news:iOa3r.113422$oV1....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>> On 2/28/2012 7:19 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:rlP2r.84353$Xo4....@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 11:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:18:54 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Supreme Court says a baby is the woman's property and that
>>>>>>>> only the
>>>>>>>> has a right to abort a human life....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes the Supreme Court any more able to make this assertion
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> for the Bible to make a similar one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 good reasons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) the bible is religious and therefore exluded from afflicting law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) The constittution is the ONLY arbiter of what the law is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you support making a human life property and even a female human
>>>>>> life
>>>>>> in the uterus the property of a woman, but making a woman property
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> man is evil?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that sexist and one sided? Are you sure this is what you
>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>> to tell us that you believe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're still waiting for you to support your claim that the Supreme
>>>>> Court
>>>>> has declared a fetus to be property.
>>>>
>>>> It was de facto when the SCOTUS made it legal to kill the fetus.
>>>
>>> So criminals on death row are property? Who do they belong to?
>>> Can you buy one?
>>>
>>> I will simply note that your claims become more and more removed from
>>> any connection to reality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are no longer discussing what I said...

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





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

Now what is wrong with what I said?

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






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

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

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

But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
1) it is someone else's property like the car...
2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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













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

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>
>But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,

That is your limitation.

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

Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
is banned from owning".

In particular, IVF embryos are indeed owned by the couple, but you
would call them "human life". A fetus isn't necessarily "owned" by
anyone

>That makes the woman the owner of a human life,

only as you define it,

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

Embryos and fetuses are not "people".

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

False.

And in particular, at the time of the founding abortion wasn't
illegal, and wasn't even frowned upon prior to "quickening".

>"MY" *comprehension* of reading the constitution

matters to no one but you.

>is that the 13th amendment bans any Slavery,

Actually not.

<Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
<
<Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So slavery is technically constitutional as punishment for a crime.
But only if Congress says so. And slavery is what CONGRESS defines it
to mean, not what you define it to mean. And if Congress doesn't
define it, it is up to the courts.

>also known as banning any human life from being considered property.

That is one interpretation, but not the only one, and certainly not
the one used in our legal system.

At the time it was passed, some people used the phrase "wage slavery"
to refer to some capitalist forms of hired labor.

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

You aren't Congress or the courts, so what you says matters not in the
least to anyone else.

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

By definition it was Constitutional because they had the judicial
power to make the decision.

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

Only to you.

>AMENDMENT XIV
>["nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
>without due process of law; "]
>
>*The PARADOX is that if the human life in the uterus is NOT* a *person*,
>*it is then PROPERTY and to make a human life property* is
>*unconstitutional as per the 13th amendment*.

Not everything that is not human life is necessarily property and vice
versa.

>Or else a person in a vegetative (brain dead state becomes property and
>a slave to their owner)

Under a vegetative state, they become neither. Upon becoming brain
dead, it depends on what the state has chosen as the definition of
death - usually brain dead means "dead" and a dead person is no longer
a "person", but it isn't clear that anyone in particular owns the
corpse. (Under common law, a corpse is neither property nor a
person).

>Vegetative slavery would then be constitutional in the States due to Amendment 10.

It is

Carrot Juice is Murder, by The Arrogant Worms

<Listen up brothers and sisters,
<come hear my desperate tale.
<I speak of our friends of nature,
<trapped in the dirt like a jail.
<
<Vegetables live in oppression,
<served on our tables each night.
<This killing of veggies is madness,
<I say we take up the fight.
<
<Salads are only for murderers,
<coleslaw's a fascist regime.
<Don't think that they don't have feelings,
<just cause a radish can't scream.
<
<Chorus:
<I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
<Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
<Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
<How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
<Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
<Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
<It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
<Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)
...

>This one SCOTUS decision to make constitutional the killing of a human
>life in the uterus has created so many problems

It has created NO problems, except for fascists like you who want to
control women's bodies.

>BUYING AND SELLING A HUMAN LIFE IS SLAVERY because it makes them
>property,

Not relevant, even if true. No one is being bought or sold.

>By reading your description of the abortion laws....
>I might think that a *man's part* inserted into a Vagina becomes the
>private property of the woman since it is inside her bodies reproductive
>system.

You might think so, nonsensically. But that is because you apparently
are erroneously thinking that abortion is based on property rights
over a fetus.

>Can a woman kill that part also?

She can certainly require that part to be removed from her body,
though that is not likely to cause death. But in self defense against
rape, probably she could kill the part, and she can probably kill the
owner of that part as well.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>
>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>
> That is your limitation.
>
>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>
> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
> is banned from owning".

I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
human being....

["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."]




So ownership of another human life;

*Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within*
*the United States*

You can't buy and own another human life.

But if you are personally pro Slavery then stand up and tell us about it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>
>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>
> That is your limitation.
>
>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>
> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
> is banned from owning".

Human life is a debatable definition according to you? And what makes
you believe that you are enlightened and smart and elite enough to tell
me when I am alive? You seem to presume that you are far smarter than
any other human life and that makes you superior and the obvious person
to decide who and when a live human exists? You presume to dictate to
nature rather the the other way around?


Thanks for being so OMNIPOTENT and telling myself and the rest of us
that you're so much more evolved that you are the last word on when and
who a human life is worth saving.


You see... there is no insult that could possibly penetrate your
stupidity. You have just proved it.

And you supported Slavery....


Are you also a member of the KKK? We see that you love slavery and
Democrat-Liberals love the KKK like Robert Byrd did... and you are all
RACISTS because you base every decision you make on RACE. Why then do
you try to hide from your true beliefs?




--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>> AMENDMENT XIV
>> >["nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
>> >without due process of law; "]
>> >
>> >*The PARADOX is that if the human life in the uterus is NOT* a *person*,
>> >*it is then PROPERTY and to make a human life property* is
>> >*unconstitutional as per the 13th amendment*.
> Not everything that is not human life is necessarily property and vice
> versa.
>

Give me an example:

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>
>>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>
>> That is your limitation.
>>
>>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>
>> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
>> is banned from owning".
>
>I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
>human being....
>
>["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."]

No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being". The
terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
statement from Congress as to their meaning.

>So ownership of another human life;
>
>*Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within*
>*the United States*
>
>You can't buy and own another human life.

But in fact a human embryo can be bought and sold under certain
limited conditions:
<http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/18/embryos-for-sale

So obviously, the "slavery" clause doesn't apply to such an embryo.

On the other hand, a pregnant woman is clearly a human, and you
apparently would allow the fetus to enslave the woman.

>But if you are personally pro Slavery then stand up and tell us about it.

It appears that you are the one who is "pro-Slavery"

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>
>>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>
>> That is your limitation.
>>
>>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>
>> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
>> is banned from owning".
>
>Human life is a debatable definition according to you?

Every word in every language is debatable as to its definition. That
is part of the nature of language.

>And what makes
>you believe that you are enlightened and smart and elite enough to tell
>me when I am alive?

I'm not.

The courts define what constitutes being "alive" as a matter of law.

>You seem to presume that you are far smarter than
>any other human life and that makes you superior and the obvious person
>to decide who and when a live human exists?

It is not my decision.

>You presume to dictate to nature rather the the other way around?

Nature has nothing to say about the matter, not being able to talk.

>Thanks for being so OMNIPOTENT and telling myself and the rest of us
>that you're so much more evolved that you are the last word on when and
>who a human life is worth saving.

Not me. The courts, with respect to decisions of law, have that
power.

>You see... there is no insult that could possibly penetrate your
>stupidity.

Whereas I see the stupidity as being entirely in your camp, since you
keep attributing to me ideas that I have not expressed, and do not
recognize as my own.

>Are you also a member of the KKK?

No.

>We see that you love slavery and
>Democrat-Liberals love the KKK like Robert Byrd did... and you are all
>RACISTS because you base every decision you make on RACE.

Speak for yourself - the only person you are entitled to speak for.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus

>> I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
>> human being....
>>
>> ["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."]
>
> No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being". The
> terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
> always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
> statement from Congress as to their meaning.

Slavery involves buying and selling live humans. You're just being stupid.




slav搪r暄
(slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav搪r搏es

1. The state of one bound in servitude *as the property* of a
slaveholder or household.

2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

He has the most who is most content with the least.
Diogenes

[Gary Forbis]

On Mar 15, 7:53 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> >>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
> >> I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
> >> human being....
>
> >> ["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."]
>
> > No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being".  The
> > terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
> > always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
> > statement from Congress as to their meaning.
>
> Slavery involves buying and selling live humans.  You're just being stupid.
>

> slav·er·y
>  (slv-r, slvr)
> n. pl. slav·er·ies

>
> 1. The state of one bound in servitude *as the property* of a
> slaveholder or household.

Now you're being more than your normal stupid. Do you see
marketing anywhere in that definition? Slavery needn't involve
buying or selling only of being "bound in servitude as the property

of a slaveholder or household."

If you want to arge based upon this definition you would argue
that the servitude to which a pregnant woman should be bound
is not based upon her being property of a slaveholder or household.
The arguement would be she is bound in servitude to the fetus
by some other mystical cause or will. When a woman wants
a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
being's life. Anyone who doesn't extend an arbitraty forced binding
between all people at all stages of their lives has a heavy load to
lift.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 8:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>>
>>>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>>
>>> That is your limitation.
>>>
>>>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>>
>>> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
>>> is banned from owning".
>>
>> Human life is a debatable definition according to you?
>
> Every word in every language is debatable as to its definition. That
> is part of the nature of language.
>

Isn't that ridiculous..... that would mean that NOTHING ever written
means anything at all, because it could mean opposite what was being
said and anything in between. That means there is nothing that can be
quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
constitution are also according to you, using debatable words and again
I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.

The way I see it the courts don't really mean what you say they mean.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 11:11 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Mar 15, 7:53 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/15/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>>> I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
>>>> human being....
>>
>>>> ["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."]
>>
>>> No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being". The
>>> terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
>>> always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
>>> statement from Congress as to their meaning.
>>
>> Slavery involves buying and selling live humans. You're just being stupid.
>>

>> slav搪r暄
>> (slv-r, slvr)
>> n. pl. slav搪r搏es
>>

>> 1. The state of one bound in servitude *as the property* of a
>> slaveholder or household.
>
> Now you're being more than your normal stupid. Do you see
> marketing anywhere in that definition? Slavery needn't involve
> buying or selling only of being "bound in servitude as the property
> of a slaveholder or household."
>

OK you buy and sell slaves and tell the government that those sex slaves
you were selling weren't yours, you were just selling those 9 year old
Ecuador girls.....

> If you want to arge based upon this definition you would argue
> that the servitude to which a pregnant woman should be bound
> is not based upon her being property of a slaveholder or household.

Actually the live human in the uterus is being called property by the
Supreme Court and they are violating the 13th amendment when they allow
a woman to say they own the live human in their uterus. It is slavery
to allow a woman to treat that live human as less than a live human with
unalienable RIGHTS.

> The arguement would be she is bound in servitude to the fetus
> by some other mystical cause or will.

The Supreme court has already said a woman can be forced to host the
live human in the uterus for the last 2 months so why are the first
seven months an invasion of privacy.

> When a woman wants
> a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
> being's life.

I call that NOT killing their baby.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

What you mean to say "I'll interpret your words" is that you and the
courts like slavery and are supporting it despite that it is banned in
the United States.

You and the courts say it is illegal to buy/sell black people and an
embryo has no skin color so it can be a slave.... which means that you
are discriminating against live humans that have no skin color.


It's simple to interpret the words that you and the courts have used.


What that really means is that the courts are actually saying to us all
that they have no jurisdiction to decide if or when any person has
unalienable RIGHTS because all live humans have unalienable RIGHTS.

[Gary Forbis]

On Mar 15, 12:02 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 11:11 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:53 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/15/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> >>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
> >>>> I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
> >>>> human being....
>
> >>>> ["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."]
>
> >>> No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being".  The
> >>> terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
> >>> always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
> >>> statement from Congress as to their meaning.
>
> >> Slavery involves buying and selling live humans.  You're just being stupid.
>

> >> slav·er·y
> >>  (slv-r, slvr)
> >> n. pl. slav·er·ies
>

> >> 1. The state of one bound in servitude *as the property* of a
> >> slaveholder or household.
>
> > Now you're being more than your normal stupid.  Do you see
> > marketing anywhere in that definition?  Slavery needn't involve
> > buying or selling only of being "bound in servitude as the property
> > of a slaveholder or household."
>
> OK you buy and sell slaves and tell the government that those sex slaves
> you were selling weren't yours, you were just selling those 9 year old
> Ecuador girls.....

Didn't I just show you that slavery needn't involve buying and
selling?
Can't you focus?

> > If you want to arge based upon this definition you would argue
> > that the servitude to which a pregnant woman should be bound
> > is not based upon her being property of a slaveholder or household.
>
> Actually the live human in the uterus is being called property by the
> Supreme Court and they are violating the 13th amendment when they allow
> a woman to say they own the live human in their uterus.  It is slavery
> to allow a woman to treat that live human as less than a live human with
> unalienable RIGHTS.

The issue is one of the fetus violating the woman's property, that
is her uterus. No where else do you support the rights of the
individual
to life above the property of others. Where else do you support the
rights of the squatter above the property owner? Do you believe home
owners have no right to the use of deadly force to protect their
property?

> > The arguement would be she is bound in servitude to the fetus
> > by some other mystical cause or will.
>
> The Supreme court has already said a woman can be forced to host the
> live human in the uterus for the last 2 months so why are the first
> seven months an invasion of privacy.

Yes. By allowing the fetus to live in her uterus for 7 months she has
given implicit permission to the fetus to live there pending birth.
By
month 8 she has had ample time to take actions to evict the fetus
from her property.

> > When a woman wants
> > a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
> > being's life.
>
> I call that NOT killing their baby.

By allowing it to use her property and resources and even by activily
changing her behaviors in support of the fetus's needs.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The definition of Slavery did you forget it?

slav·er·y
(slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies

1. The state of one *bound in servitude as the property* of a
slaveholder or household.

2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Slavery being as it is human property and *property* has been bought and
sold it is NOT a requirement but is akin to it.

>> The Supreme court has already said a woman can be forced to host the
>> live human in the uterus for the last 2 months so why are the first
>> seven months an invasion of privacy.
>
> Yes. By allowing the fetus to live in her uterus for 7 months she has
> given implicit permission to the fetus to live there pending birth.
> By
> month 8 she has had ample time to take actions to evict the fetus
> from her property.

Then the fact the woman had consensual sex implies permission for the
first seven months.

>>> When a woman wants
>>> a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
>>> being's life.
>>
>> I call that NOT killing their baby.
>
> By allowing it to use her property and resources and even by activily
> changing her behaviors in support of the fetus's needs.

It's a human baby, not a tape worm. They are here to be our
posterity. These babies ensure the existence of the species, men and
women get together and do the nasty to make these babies. The babies
did NOT appear from thin air to invade a woman's uterus.

Surely if you can let a Mexican move into the United States for life
without any recourse then a live human in a woman's uterus can be
allowed for 7 extra months without killing it. Or do you think that
killing human life is OK and if it is then you must be for killing all
trespassing humans and you want to kill the trespassing Mexicans too
just to be fair and make all your actions equal and all punishments equal.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 11:11 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:

> On Mar 15, 7:53 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/15/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>>> I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
>>>> human being....
>>
>>>> ["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."]
>>
>>> No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being". The
>>> terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
>>> always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
>>> statement from Congress as to their meaning.
>>
>> Slavery involves buying and selling live humans. You're just being stupid.
>>

>> slav搪r暄
>> (slv-r, slvr)
>> n. pl. slav搪r搏es
>>

>> 1. The state of one bound in servitude *as the property* of a
>> slaveholder or household.
>
> Now you're being more than your normal stupid. Do you see
> marketing anywhere in that definition? Slavery needn't involve
> buying or selling only of being "bound in servitude as the property
> of a slaveholder or household."

Let me refer to the Supreme Court and the Commerce Clause... I believe
they said in Liberal terms that anything that "effects" the "economy" is
commerce and any slavery surely effects the economy, comes within the
purview of the commerce clause and the Federal Governments power.

Obama said your personal health care within your States is interstate
Commerce because it effects the NATION.

Which is why they also feel they have the power to regulate you growing
crops on your land for yourself.


That means ALL SLAVERY IS COMMERCE.


Don't you just love it when Liberals tie their own noose to hang
themselves with.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/15/2012 8:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>>>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>>>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>>>
>>>> That is your limitation.
>>>>
>>>>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>>>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
>>>> is banned from owning".
>>>
>>> Human life is a debatable definition according to you?
>>
>> Every word in every language is debatable as to its definition. That
>> is part of the nature of language.
>
>Isn't that ridiculous.

It is reality.

>. that would mean that NOTHING ever written means anything at all,

It means something. Indeed it means lots of things, with different
meanings understood by different people.

>because it could mean opposite what was being
>said and anything in between.

A few words have indeed had that happen to them. Not common, but it
happens.

>That means there is nothing that can be
>quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>constitution are also according to you, using debatable words

They are.

One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
meaning within a legal context.

>and again
>I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.

You can do whatever you want, but if you guess wrong you may face the
consequences.

That is why it is useful to accept the conventional interpretations of
language. One has the possibility of understanding what someone
intended to mean.

>The way I see it the courts don't really mean what you say they mean.

But since you see everything through nutcase-colored glasses, that
hardly means anything.

Hint: it doesn't matter what >I< say they mean. What matters is what
THEY say that they mean.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/15/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>
>>> I believe that the 13th amendment says you can't OWN another living
>>> human being....
>>>
>>> ["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."]
>>
>> No mention of "ownership" in there, nor of "living human being". The
>> terms are "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", and they mean, as
>> always, what the courts determine them to mean, possibly colored by a
>> statement from Congress as to their meaning.
>
>Slavery involves buying and selling live humans. You're just being stupid.

It may or may not. Many slaves were never bought or sold, but they
were slaves nonetheless.

lojbab

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>Then the fact the woman had consensual sex implies permission for the
>first seven months.

No, it doesn't.

>>>> When a woman wants
>>>> a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
>>>> being's life.
>>>
>>> I call that NOT killing their baby.
>>
>> By allowing it to use her property and resources and even by activily
>> changing her behaviors in support of the fetus's needs.
>
>It's a human baby,

It's a fetus, not yet a baby.

>not a tape worm.

It may be no more desired than a tapeworm.

>They are here to be our posterity.

Ideology. A woman who wants an abortion clearly is NOT interested in
the fetus becoming her "posterity".

>These babies ensure the existence of the species,

We have way more than enough kids being born to ensure the species.

>men and women get together and do the nasty

That may be your problem. You seem to thing that sex is nasty.

>to make these babies.

That is NOT why most people have sex, most of the time.

lojbab

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>What you mean to say "I'll interpret your words" is that you and the
>courts like slavery

That is NOT what I mean to say, liar.

>You and the courts say it is illegal to buy/sell black people and an
>embryo has no skin color so it can be a slave.

An embryo isn't a person. And embryos past a certain stage have skin,
and when they do it does have a skin color.

>It's simple to interpret the words that you and the courts have used.

You interpret words incorrectly, as evidenced by the fact that the
courts do not rule the way you wish that they did.

>What that really means is that the courts are actually saying to us all
> that they have no jurisdiction to decide if or when any person has
>unalienable RIGHTS because all live humans have unalienable RIGHTS.

There are no unalienable rights. Nor inalienable ones, The DofI
notwithstanding.

lojbab

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/22/2012 8:48 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> Then the fact the woman had consensual sex implies permission for the
>> first seven months.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>>>>> When a woman wants
>>>>> a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
>>>>> being's life.
>>>>
>>>> I call that NOT killing their baby.
>>>
>>> By allowing it to use her property and resources and even by activily
>>> changing her behaviors in support of the fetus's needs.
>>
>> It's a human baby,
>
> It's a fetus, not yet a baby.
>
>> not a tape worm.
>
> It may be no more desired than a tapeworm.

so you think children or human life that are desired can be terminated?




--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/22/2012 8:40 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/15/2012 8:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman's uterus
>>>>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>>>>> ever it is that she is doing to what "she" owns. If she owns it, it is
>>>>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if it's NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>>>>
>>>>> That is your limitation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) it is someone else's property like the car...
>>>>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing says that "human life" as YOU define it is something "everyone
>>>>> is banned from owning".
>>>>
>>>> Human life is a debatable definition according to you?
>>>
>>> Every word in every language is debatable as to its definition. That
>>> is part of the nature of language.
>>
>> Isn't that ridiculous.
>
> It is reality.
>
>> . that would mean that NOTHING ever written means anything at all,
>

> It means something. Indeed it means lots of things, with *different*
> *meanings understood by different people* .

>
>> because it could mean opposite what was being
>> said and anything in between.
>
> A few words have indeed had that happen to them. Not common, but it
> happens.
>
>> That means there is nothing that can be
>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>
> They are.
>
> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
> meaning within a legal context.

So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?

>> and again
>> I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.
>
> You can do whatever you want, but if you guess wrong you may face the
> consequences.

[" *different meanings understood by different people* "]


You just said that it means different things to different people,
obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
to you... "according to you". That begs the question "which one is
following the law"?

Looks like you hit a Catch-22 in your little Liberal scam.

Debasing the constitution is your real goal. But you can't seem to
keep track of all the lies you tell to get to your goal, and now they're
conflicting lies that you tell that conflict with the old lies.

You know it turns my stomach just having to point out the lies, because
it's unseemly and just NOT all that dignified to point out the lies, but
then it has to be done, so as distasteful as it is... I'll step up and
make the personal sacrifice for the public good.


To you.... defining a word is akin to using a hammer to drive a nail
through a marble. A real man at this point would confess his goals of
getting more Socialism at any cost including the cost of losing your
honor, just so you don't have to get a real job and actually produce
enough of anything to pay for your own way in life. I'm confident "you"
have no such plans to pay your own way.

[Jeff Strickland]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:LZSar.225867$oV1.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 3/22/2012 8:48 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> Then the fact the woman had consensual sex implies permission for the
>>> first seven months.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>>>>> When a woman wants
>>>>>> a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
>>>>>> being's life.
>>>>>
>>>>> I call that NOT killing their baby.
>>>>
>>>> By allowing it to use her property and resources and even by activily
>>>> changing her behaviors in support of the fetus's needs.
>>>
>>> It's a human baby,
>>
>> It's a fetus, not yet a baby.
>>
>>> not a tape worm.
>>
>> It may be no more desired than a tapeworm.
>
>
> so you think children or human life that are desired can be terminated?
>
>

You meant UNDESIRED...

And, yes. That is precisely what he thinks. He clearly has a magic line that
a pregnancy must proceed across to change a fetus into a baby. Until that
line is crossed, anything can be done to terminate the life.

[Jeff Strickland]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F6C2110...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

Yes, he thinks that. He's a student of the It Depends on What the Meaning of
It Is school. He lives in a universe where everybody is in a constant state
of confusion until he comes along and defines the topic for us. He is a well
known revisionist historian where he is allowed to change history to his
view and demean everybody else that holds onto the known history as a basis
for moving forward.

[Gary Forbis]

On Mar 23, 7:24 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> messagenews:LZSar.225867$oV1.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

I won't speak for Bob but I will speak for me.

I believe a woman has every bit as much right to her property as any
one
else. All people have the right, including the use of deadly force,
to evict
others who have unlawfully entered their property. This doesn't mean
any
one is required to use deadly force. While I believe there is a huge
difference
between a fetus and a baby I also believe the line is blurry. The
approach
I outlined doesn't depend upon such a distinction.

Many states have laws of adverse posession. In some one can put up
a fence and use the property and provided this isn't on behalf of the
owner
and the owner doesn't complain within a set period of time the person
using the property can then file for and take ownership. The third
trimester
exemption, except in the cases of life and health, pending abandonment
falls into this category.

[I am an old fetus]

Typos they're a bitch....


And I am just an OLD FETUS, why would he have killed me when I was a
little young fetus? What crime had I been convicted of?



I'm guessing that he would NOT be all that upset with killing those that
"are desired".....

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>
>> They are.
>>
>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>> meaning within a legal context.
>
>So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?

All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
nothing to do with that.

>>> and again
>>> I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.
>>
>> You can do whatever you want, but if you guess wrong you may face the
>> consequences.
>
>[" *different meanings understood by different people* "]
>
>You just said that it means different things to different people,
>obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
>to you... "according to you". That begs the question "which one is
>following the law"?

The court, since it has the authority and not you.

But you are free to think otherwise, until they come to take you away
(and indeed even after they take you away, unless you are executed for
a capital crime in which case you won't be thinking anything ever
again).

>Looks like you hit a Catch-22 in your little Liberal scam.
>
>Debasing the constitution is your real goal.

Yet another mind-reading failure.

>But you can't seem to keep track of all the lies you tell

I don't lie.

>You know it turns my stomach just having to point out the lies

It turns my stomach to read your posts.

>because
>it's unseemly and just NOT all that dignified to point out the lies, but
>then it has to be done, so as distasteful as it is... I'll step up and
>make the personal sacrifice for the public good.

You display no interest in the public good.

>To you.... defining a word is akin to using a hammer to drive a nail
>through a marble.

No.

>A real man at this point would confess his goals of
>getting more Socialism at any cost including the cost of losing your
>honor,

Since I have no such goal, there is no reason for me to confess it.

>just so you don't have to get a real job and actually produce
>enough of anything to pay for your own way in life. I'm confident "you"
>have no such plans to pay your own way.

Being quasi-retired, no. But then I have paid in the past (mortgage
was paid in full some 25 years ago), and my wife brings home the bacon
now so that together we "pay our own way" (not to mention helping the
kids out once in a while).

[Bob LeChevalier]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>
>>> They are.
>>>
>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>
>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>
>Yes, he thinks that.

You are as bad a mind reader as he is.

>He's a student of the It Depends on What the Meaning of
>It Is school. He lives in a universe where everybody is in a constant state
>of confusion until he comes along and defines the topic for us.

Everything is in a constant state of confusion even when I come along.

>He is a well known

I am?

>revisionist historian

I certainly study history. But I don't claim to be a historian.

>where he is allowed to change history to his view

I don't have the power to change history.

>and demean everybody else that holds onto the known history as a basis
>for moving forward.

Well, I have no qualms about demeaning idiots like you who post
nonsense on Usenet. But that has little to do with history, or the
meaning of words.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/22/2012 8:48 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> Then the fact the woman had consensual sex implies permission for the
>>> first seven months.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>>>>> When a woman wants
>>>>>> a baby the binding is one of choice and aspirations for the future
>>>>>> being's life.
>>>>>
>>>>> I call that NOT killing their baby.
>>>>
>>>> By allowing it to use her property and resources and even by activily
>>>> changing her behaviors in support of the fetus's needs.
>>>
>>> It's a human baby,
>>
>> It's a fetus, not yet a baby.
>>
>>> not a tape worm.
>>
>> It may be no more desired than a tapeworm.
>
>so you think children or human life that are desired can be terminated?

We're talking about fetuses, not children.

Making that correction, they are. God is the top abortionist, causing
far more miscarriages than all humans put together, and affecting
those who want children equally with those who don't.

[Bob LeChevalier]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>He clearly has a magic line that
>a pregnancy must proceed across to change a fetus into a baby.

Why yes. It is called "birth".

>Until that line is crossed, anything can be done to terminate the life.

The courts haven't supported that extreme a position. And I don't
object to the court's position.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/23/2012 12:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>
>>> They are.
>>>
>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>
>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>
> All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
> courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
> nothing to do with that.
>
>>>> and again
>>>> I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.
>>>
>>> You can do whatever you want, but if you guess wrong you may face the
>>> consequences.
>>
>> [" *different meanings understood by different people* "]
>>
>> You just said that it means different things to different people,
>> obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
>> to you... "according to you". That begs the question "which one is
>> following the law"?
>
> The court, since it has the authority and not you.

then you can't "redefine" the constitution because it never delegates
that power.... And to interpret the constitution without that
authority is an egregious violation in the constitutional separation of
powers.

I have been made a citizen and delegated the power to stop you and the
courts from violating the constitution.

[Bob LeChevalier]

It doesn't have to delegate it.

>And to interpret the constitution without that
>authority is an egregious violation in the constitutional separation of
>powers.

The authority to interpret is inherent to the judicial power, which is
explicitly delegated.

>I have been made a citizen and delegated the power to stop you and the
>courts from violating the constitution.

Delegated by whom?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You just said I didn't have that power, and it is a power given to the
Federal government, or the States or the people.


You say it isn't delegated to the Feds or the People, so show me where
the States are delegated or NOT prohibited that power....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then tell us where that power to redefine the constitution comes from.

[Bob LeChevalier]

You don't.

>and it is a power given to the Federal government, or the States or the people.

No.

>You say it isn't delegated to the Feds or the People,

No.

[Bob LeChevalier]

You are inconsistent about putting "redefine" in horror quotes.

There is no such power, because no such power is needed, or relevant.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I agree NO such power exists...


That down, now tell me what power they are using to change the
constitution without an amendment......


Remember the Federal Government ONLY has those powers delegated to it
"by" the constitution.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If it isn't a power delegated BY the constitution then it can't be done
by the Federal government.


Those are the plain and simple facts.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/25/2012 1:54 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>> You just said that it means different things to different people,
>>>>>>> obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
>>>>>>> to you... "according to you". That begs the question "which one is
>>>>>>> following the law"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The court, since it has the authority and not you.
>>>>>
>>>>> then you can't "redefine" the constitution because it never delegates
>>>>> that power....
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to delegate it.
>>>
>>> Then tell us where that power to redefine the constitution comes from.
>>
>> You are inconsistent about putting "redefine" in horror quotes.
>>
>> There is no such power, because no such power is needed, or relevant.
>
>I agree NO such power exists...
>
>That down, now tell me what power they are using to change the
>constitution without an amendment......

None, since they aren't changing the constitution without an
amendment. The text of the constitution is the same as it was before
any court case was decided, and so long as the words are unchanged,
the constitution is not changed.

>Remember the Federal Government ONLY has those powers delegated to it
>"by" the constitution.

But those powers include implied powers. And it is up to the courts
what powers are implied.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The court, since it has the authority and not you.
>>>>>
>>>>> then you can't "redefine" the constitution because it never delegates
>>>>> that power....
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to delegate it.
>>>
>>> You just said I didn't have that power,
>>
>> You don't.
>>
>>> and it is a power given to the Federal government, or the States or the people.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> You say it isn't delegated to the Feds or the People,
>>
>> No.
>
>If it isn't a power delegated BY the constitution then it can't be done
>by the Federal government.
>
>Those are the plain and simple facts.

It isn't done. Those are the plain and simple facts.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/26/2012 8:11 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/25/2012 1:54 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>>> You just said that it means different things to different people,
>>>>>>>> obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
>>>>>>>> to you... "according to you". That begs the question "which one is
>>>>>>>> following the law"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The court, since it has the authority and not you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then you can't "redefine" the constitution because it never delegates
>>>>>> that power....
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't have to delegate it.
>>>>
>>>> Then tell us where that power to redefine the constitution comes from.
>>>
>>> You are inconsistent about putting "redefine" in horror quotes.
>>>
>>> There is no such power, because no such power is needed, or relevant.
>>
>> I agree NO such power exists...
>>
>> That down, now tell me what power they are using to change the
>> constitution without an amendment......
>
> None, since they aren't changing the constitution without an
> amendment. The text of the constitution is the same as it was before
> any court case was decided, and so long as the words are unchanged,
> the constitution is not changed.

That's good but we have new powers... where did they come from since
there is NO new text, they weren't in the constitution until the courts
interpreted the text and re-defined it all to mean something that is
different than what it had previously meant... other wise we wouldn't
be saying they interpreted it, they would have just used the text that
has been accessible with reasonable reading comprehension, by most
everyone for 200 years.

>
>> Remember the Federal Government ONLY has those powers delegated to it
>> "by" the constitution.
>
> But those powers include implied powers. And it is up to the courts
> what powers are implied.
>

I didn't see implied powers anywhere... maybe you can quote me that
TEXT from the Constitution/Bill of RIGHTS

Have "you" made up a definition of what an implied power is?

Why do my GUN RIGHTS need to be explicit and government commerce powers
can be "IMPLIED" you seem to have double standards.


Are all Liberals such purveyors of unexplained inconsistencies.



Or should I just say, *why are you bullshitting us*

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/26/2012 8:11 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2012 1:54 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You just said that it means different things to different people,
>>>>>>>>> obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
>>>>>>>>> to you... "according to you". That begs the question "which one is
>>>>>>>>> following the law"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The court, since it has the authority and not you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then you can't "redefine" the constitution because it never delegates
>>>>>>> that power....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't have to delegate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then tell us where that power to redefine the constitution comes from.
>>>>
>>>> You are inconsistent about putting "redefine" in horror quotes.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such power, because no such power is needed, or relevant.
>>>
>>> I agree NO such power exists...
>>>
>>> That down, now tell me what power they are using to change the
>>> constitution without an amendment......
>>
>> None, since they aren't changing the constitution without an
>> amendment. The text of the constitution is the same as it was before
>> any court case was decided, and so long as the words are unchanged,
>> the constitution is not changed.
>
>That's good but we have new powers.

Not really.

>where did they come from

The laws that enable them.

>since there is NO new text, they weren't in the constitution until the courts
>interpreted the text

Since the text did not change, they clearly WERE in the constitution.

That the court had not so decided already, means only that there
hadn't been a court case on that issue before then.

>and re-defined it all to mean something that is
>different than what it had previously meant.

Words do change in meaning, so that is plausible. "cruel and unusual
punishment" is a phrase that has greatly changed in meaning. This is
good.

>>> Remember the Federal Government ONLY has those powers delegated to it
>>> "by" the constitution.
>>
>> But those powers include implied powers. And it is up to the courts
>> what powers are implied.
>
>I didn't see implied powers anywhere.

That is because you are ignorant of the law.

>Have "you" made up a definition of what an implied power is?
>
>Why do my GUN RIGHTS need to be explicit and government commerce powers
>can be "IMPLIED" you seem to have double standards.

The commerce power is explicit.

The right of privacy is not explicit. But I am sure that you value
it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

["Amendment IV
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons*, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall* *not be
violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."]



Seems rather "explicit" to me, what RIGHT is implicit?


And By the way, I see no implicit or explicit parts of that Amendment
that says ONE INDIVIDUAL can give the government permission to ignore a
law that government is directed by the constitution to follow....

I can't give up a RIGHT that the constitution says I have, that would
take an amendment, all I can do is maybe lay down and not compel or
demand that the government not violate the constitution's law.

But government has no RIGHT to search without a warrant even if I say
they can, because I don't have the power to speak for the constitution
which is actually what is demanding the government get the warrant.


--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[Gary Forbis]

On Apr 4, 6:58 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> ["Amendment IV
> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons*, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall* *not be
> violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."]
>
> Seems rather "explicit" to me, what RIGHT is implicit?

Interestingly the Roberts Court has decided a guy riding in a car can
be taken into custody and strip searched without a warrant (or more
specifically without a valid warrant).

I'm wondering why with that very explicit right strip searches are
allowed at all except in very rare cases when someone has said
under oath that he or she saw a particular item being placed in
a particular orface.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It's Government Gone Wild.

But then if you're going to let them make up things like "A RIGHT TO
ABORTION" when it isn't written, why would you think they wouldn't do
the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum?


To think that they would only abuse the constitution the way you want it
abused is silly, of course they'll pervert that to benefit someone that
pays them or that they like or whatever.


That old saying "YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW" seems to be appropriate.


Democrats have sown the seeds of judicial activism to get laws/powers
they think are worth lying and cheating and violating the constitution
to get.... Now that the shoe is on the other foot they cry like little
girls. This is just too funny, Democrats are such stupid idiots that
they couldn't see this coming?

Enjoy your abortion, it only cost you one very rational and fair
constitution.

[Gary Forbis]

On Apr 5, 6:48 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:46 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 6:58 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >> ["Amendment IV
> >> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons*, houses, papers,
> >> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall* *not be
> >> violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> >> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> >> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."]
>
> >> Seems rather "explicit" to me, what RIGHT is implicit?
>
> > Interestingly the Roberts Court has decided a guy riding in a car can
> > be taken into custody and strip searched without a warrant (or more
> > specifically without a valid warrant).
>
> > I'm wondering why with that very explicit right strip searches are
> > allowed at all except in very rare cases when someone has said
> > under oath that he or she saw a particular item being placed in
> > a particular orface.
>
> It's Government Gone Wild.
>
> But then if you're going to let them make up things like "A RIGHT TO
> ABORTION" when it isn't written, why would you think they wouldn't do
> the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum?

Right to an abortion? I think I've said a right to one's property
where
one's body is one's property. The rest flows from castle and stand
your
ground laws.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NO you can't own another human life.... that is slavery. So I am
correct, or the Supreme court has violated amendment 13 and
re-instituted slavery.

They did uphold slavery before so that really won't surprise me if they
found a way to *interpret* the constitution so that SLAVERY is still
legal....

It won't effect me as I don't have any urge to own a slave be it black
or white or whatever. It is odd that you can still buy and or own a
black human life, considering all the hoopla and the war and 500,000
dead over ending slavery. But I guess Liberalism is far more important
than the reality that slavery is going on directly under pregnant
women's noses.

And you deleted the best parts of my post, and then did a piss poor job
responding to what was left.


Saying it's "one's body", ignores that it's actually two human lives
temporarily sharing a domicile.


dom·i·cile
(dm-sl, -sl, dm-)
n.
1. A residence; a home.
2. One's legal residence.
v. dom·i·ciled, dom·i·cil·ing, dom·i·ciles
v.tr.
1. To establish (oneself or another person) in a residence.
2. *To provide with often temporary lodging* .

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Oh and if Obama can force me to buy insurance, then he can force a woman
to provide a temporary domicile for her baby the fetus. because by
forcing me to buy something it's no less a burden than a woman forced to
house a baby. It's the Federal government and the WELFARE CLAUSE that
trumps anything else, or at least that's the Liberals viewpoint as
expressed to me.

[Gary Forbis]

On Apr 5, 10:32 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

If one cannot own another humna's live then a woman can evict
what you are calling a baby. The woman's body is her own and
not that of the "baby". The courts have upheld the use of deadly
force when protecting one's property. The intruder is presumed
guilty.

[Info Junkie]

US Constitution - Amendments
"XIII - Slavery Abolished
"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." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13

1. Since the fetus has not been duly convicted of any crime, no
punishment of slavery has been authorized under the constitutional law
of the USA

2. A "women's body" by design is capable of carrying another life (or
lives). Since she doesn't have the ability to change her design, i.e.
her DNA, said design remains more than just her own. Similar to a car
vs. a unicycle. One is designed to carry several persons while the
other, only one person. Once she willingly had sex**, she accepted
the risk of carrying "passengers".

ITM, why isn't your claim that "a woman's body is her own" been
successfully used by women after their arrest/conviction for using/
having drugs/drug paraphernalia in her own home*?

*Performing activities within their personal property lines and for
personal use

3. The legal definition of "deadly force" cannot be applied to
abortion:
"An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily
injury or death to another person"
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

Billions(?) of women have had kids naturally since (?) and most did
not die during natural childbirth. Yet you wish to apply "An amount of
force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death"
to a fetus that has not been convicted in a court of law, nor "cause
either serious bodily injury or death to another person" especially in
light of today's medical procedures.

What you (and leftist-liberals/progressives) really want is for women
that did not conceive by themselves**, to become judge, jury and
executioner of a fetus that is causing an incovenience to their
lifestyle(s).

**Absent issues concerning rape and incest

[Gary Forbis]

Of what crime has the mother been duly convicted that she should
should become the slave of the fetus?

> 2. A "women's body" by design is capable of carrying another life (or
> lives). Since she doesn't have the ability to change her design, i.e.
> her DNA, said design remains more than just her own.  Similar to a car
> vs. a unicycle. One is designed to carry several persons while the
> other, only one person.  Once she willingly had sex**, she accepted
> the risk of carrying "passengers".

Should I be required to carry any hitchhicker that I come across just
because my car can carry them? Is this a requirement of driving such
a car? You're argument would be even stranger if I didn't choose the
car. How about my house. Am I to accept any one who happens into
my house just because I forgot to lock the door or the state has
asserted
locks were illegal?

> ITM, why isn't your claim that "a woman's body is her own" been
> successfully used by women after their arrest/conviction for using/
> having drugs/drug paraphernalia in her own home*?

Because the laws are created by crazy people who can't keep
a consistent line of argument. It's ad hocery by zelots. QED.

> *Performing activities within their personal property lines and for
> personal use

As I said, you make my point that the principles used by the
court aren't consistently applied. The rulings by the courts
as to the constitutionality are random based upon biases rather
than rationally decided.

> 3. The legal definition of "deadly force" cannot be applied to
> abortion:
> "An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily
> injury or death to another person"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

Most abortions lead to death of the fetus.

> Billions(?) of women have had kids naturally since (?) and most did
> not die during natural childbirth. Yet you wish to apply "An amount of
> force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death"
> to a fetus that has not been convicted in a court of law, nor "cause
> either serious bodily injury or death to another person" especially in
> light of today's medical procedures.

I don't wish such a thing. I accept that doing so is the woman's
right
or else we are not arguing from a consistent set of principles. Do
you
believe you must pick up all hitchhikers you can when driving? Do you
believe anyone who wanders onto your property and establishes house
must be alllowed to do so?

> What you (and leftist-liberals/progressives) really want is for women
> that did not conceive by themselves**, to become judge, jury and
> executioner of a fetus that is causing an incovenience to their
> lifestyle(s).

No, I merely wish for the law to be argued from a consistent set of
principles.

> **Absent issues concerning rape and incest

The fetus isn't responsible for the rape or incest.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You presume the woman locked the door.....

[Info Junkie]

The fetus is at the complete mercy of the actions of the mother.
Since when does the alleged "slave" control all actions of the
"master"?

> > 2. A "women's body" by design is capable of carrying another life (or
> > lives). Since she doesn't have the ability to change her design, i.e.
> > her DNA, said design remains more than just her own. Similar to a car
> > vs. a unicycle. One is designed to carry several persons while the
> > other, only one person. Once she willingly had sex**, she accepted
> > the risk of carrying "passengers".
>
> Should I be required to carry any hitchhicker that I come across just
> because my car can carry them?

Since you voluntarily stopped to allow them to enter your car, you
accepted the risk.

> Is this a requirement of driving such
> a car?

The only "requirement" of driving is to follow both the law regarding
the privileges of driving on public roads and not exceeding the design
of the automobile. Both of these issues are under the full control of
the driver.

>You're argument would be even stranger if I didn't choose the
> car.

Since you cannot control the design of your "car", you may only
control the "car" based on its design. From your "hitchhiker" analogy
you have the complete control of the car, the hitchhiker does not.

>How about my house. Am I to accept any one who happens into
> my house just because I forgot to lock the door or the state has
> asserted
> locks were illegal?

Anyone who you allowed into your house is your responsibility. You
attempt to compare a fetus in a women's body is akin to a stranger-in-
your-house. This is a false assertion on two fronts, where it asserts
a fetus:

1. is likened to a stranger, has the conscious ability to enter an
area not its own (and)
2. has the magical ability to enter a women's body without any action
on the part of two other persons.

> > ITM, why isn't your claim that "a woman's body is her own" been
> > successfully used by women after their arrest/conviction for using/
> > having drugs/drug paraphernalia in her own home*?
>
> Because the laws are created by crazy people who can't keep
> a consistent line of argument. It's ad hocery by zelots. QED.

IOW, you wish to blame others for your failing argument(s).
Understood.

> > *Performing activities within their personal property lines and for
> > personal use
>
> As I said, you make my point that the principles used by the
> court aren't consistently applied. The rulings by the courts
> as to the constitutionality are random based upon biases rather
> than rationally decided.

This is what happens when the court(s) are comprised of liberals
(progressives) that prefer a "living constitution". Said
"interpretations" of constitutional law from failing to follow said
principles. Abortion is but one example where;

"In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), for example, Justice William O.
Douglas declared that constitutional "penumbras" and "emanations"
voided a statute prohibiting the provision of contraceptives to
married couples. His opinion was a magnificent feat of imagination to
defeat an ill-conceived statute, but it was no less constitutionally
illegitimate."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/7/20051107-100012-1331r/?page=all

> > 3. The legal definition of "deadly force" cannot be applied to
> > abortion:
> > "An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily
> > injury or death to another person"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force
>
> Most abortions lead to death of the fetus.

Then the women voluntarily choose to be judge, jury and executioner to
heart-pounding being without due process of law.

> > Billions(?) of women have had kids naturally since (?) and most did
> > not die during natural childbirth. Yet you wish to apply "An amount of
> > force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death"
> > to a fetus that has not been convicted in a court of law, nor "cause
> > either serious bodily injury or death to another person" especially in
> > light of today's medical procedures.
>
> I don't wish such a thing. I accept that doing so is the woman's
> right

This is a Court-created right not found in the US Constitution.

> or else we are not arguing from a consistent set of principles.

The consistency of principles is for "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" for all beings under the jurisdiction of the United States.
When one aborts a being without due process of law, it is the
consistency of principles that defines such actions as murder:

"The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or
excuse."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

However, the liberal/progressive Court created a "right", not by the
consistency of constitutional principles, but just what liberals/
progressives wanted; an "excuse" or "justification" of murdering
others…in this case a fetus. They did so by "interpreting", NOT by
any "consistency of constitutional principles”, but through the
laughable concept of "penumbras” and “emanations", terms NEVER before
found in the history of previous court cases, but considered in the
“interpretations” of the liberal/progressive courts through an ever-
changing, "living constitution".

"Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional
construction (since it is the rule which all other rules may be said
to be designed to implement) is the principle that a constitution is
to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its framers and by
the people who adopted it..." Vol 16 American Jurisprudence
(constitutional law) Sec. 91

...The modern Supreme Court has for many years rejected the cautious,
limited concepts Marshall expounded and, despite its denials, has
become a quasi-legislative branch of the government."
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/hobson.htm

>Do you believe you must pick up all hitchhikers you can when driving?

Since I control my own vehicle, *I* make the decisions and must accept
the risks and responsibilities of MY decisions (actions). Unlike you,
I don’t blame hitchhikers for MY decisions.

> Do you believe anyone who wanders onto your property and establishes house
> must be alllowed to do so?

Ah, still trying to inject a straw man fallacy? Since I control who
enters my property, *I* make the decisions and must accept the risks
and responsibilities of MY decisions (actions). Unlike a fetus, a
stranger has the conscious ability to discern property that is not
their own. I have full authority to direct MY actions on how this
stranger is perceived based on their conscious actions. IOW, nothing
will happen if they voluntarily leave when asked to do so without my
being in fear for my life or fear for the lives for which I’m
responsible.

Unlike a stranger that consciously enters property not their own, I’m
unaware of any fetus that can consciously (and magically) “appear” in
a women’s womb* by actions the fetus can make…do you?

*Absent rape and incest

> > What you (and leftist-liberals/progressives) really want is for
women
> > that did not conceive by themselves**, to become judge, jury and
> > executioner of a fetus that is causing an incovenience to their
> > lifestyle(s).
>
> No, I merely wish for the law to be argued from a consistent set of
> principles.

Really? Tell us, how does one get a "consistent set of principles"
that are based on "penumbras" and "emanations", won't you?

What you want is the "justification" or "excuse" of murder from the
court-created right.

> > **Absent issues concerning rape and incest
>
> The fetus isn't responsible for the rape or incest.

Never said the fetus was responsible for rape or incest. Who then is
responsible for a fetus appearing in a women’s womb without any
actions on her and a male’s involvement? Why are you blaming the
fetus?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The Woman made CHOICES... that placed her in her condition. One choice
was NOT getting her tubes tied or NOT taking birth control or not using
a condom or not refraining from vaginal intercourse.

There were many choices that could have been pursued to avoid the
situation in which she has decided to place herself, given that she is
pregnant, she chose to ignore all her other choices and NOW wants to
kill a human life. If I choose to put my hand in a meat grinder I will
pull back a stump..... and killing my kids after I grind off my hand
won't change or fix the choice I already made.

It only means that by killing them, I won't have to feed, dress or care
for the kids.

So there is NO force of law needed when the woman made the choice to
procreate. The First Lady Michelle Obama through government is making
you "choose" to order unhealthy McDonald's by forcing you to have to ask
for something other than they put out front on the menu. You get apples
rather than fries, unless you ask for fries in that happy meal.

They say it's OK since you still have the "choice". Well extrapolate
that to conception... you have the choice. If you choose to accept
pregnancy... well hello mommy. A woman is treated by Liberals like an
idiot, dumber than a cow. Women can't select foods for their kids and
they aren't smart enough to select contraceptives to stop having kids...
both have consequences and women want to turn that decision and
consequence over to the government to solve for them. I assume because
women agree with Liberals, that women are stupid?

I didn't know women were so ignorant and so absolutely useless? But
Liberals are teaching me that women really are that stupid.

>> 2. A "women's body" by design is capable of carrying another life (or
>> lives). Since she doesn't have the ability to change her design, i.e.
>> her DNA, said design remains more than just her own. Similar to a car
>> vs. a unicycle. One is designed to carry several persons while the
>> other, only one person. Once she willingly had sex**, she accepted
>> the risk of carrying "passengers".

> Should I be required to carry any hitchhicker that I come across just
> because my car can carry them? Is this a requirement of driving such
> a car?

It may be very soon in Obamaville. And yes if you have a Connected
twin and you are born connected at (lets say) the head, you can't just
kill the twin to get rid of them. To save your life yes, to make you
happy NO because the other has that same right to life and happiness.

> You're argument would be even stranger if I didn't choose the
> car. How about my house. Am I to accept any one who happens into
> my house just because I forgot to lock the door or the state has
> asserted
> locks were illegal?

You can't shoot them and it takes 90 days to evict them.

And a baby didn't wander by and decide to climb up your uterus. You
invited the sperm to stay as long as it wants and if it finds an egg it
stays for about 9 months..

>> ITM, why isn't your claim that "a woman's body is her own" been
>> successfully used by women after their arrest/conviction for using/
>> having drugs/drug paraphernalia in her own home*?
>
> Because the laws are created by crazy people who can't keep
> a consistent line of argument. It's ad hocery by zelots. QED.
>

Crazy people... everywhere

>> *Performing activities within their personal property lines and for
>> personal use
>
> As I said, you make my point that the principles used by the
> court aren't consistently applied.

That is my point.

> The rulings by the courts
> as to the constitutionality are random based upon biases rather
> than rationally decided.

Rationally speaking we aren't Gods and the constitution says we have to
respect human life. The constitution is NOT random and crazy.

>> 3. The legal definition of "deadly force" cannot be applied to
>> abortion:
>> "An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily
>> injury or death to another person"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force
>
> Most abortions lead to death of the fetus.
>
>> Billions(?) of women have had kids naturally since (?) and most did
>> not die during natural childbirth. Yet you wish to apply "An amount of
>> force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death"
>> to a fetus that has not been convicted in a court of law, nor "cause
>> either serious bodily injury or death to another person" especially in
>> light of today's medical procedures.
>
> I don't wish such a thing. I accept that doing so is the woman's
> right
> or else we are not arguing from a consistent set of principles. Do
> you
> believe you must pick up all hitchhikers you can when driving?

The ones to voluntarily pick up, you are "agreeing" NOT to kill.

> Do you
> believe anyone who wanders onto your property and establishes house
> must be alllowed to do so?

Only people you invite...

>
>> What you (and leftist-liberals/progressives) really want is for women
>> that did not conceive by themselves**, to become judge, jury and
>> executioner of a fetus that is causing an incovenience to their
>> lifestyle(s).
>
> No, I merely wish for the law to be argued from a consistent set of
> principles.
>
>> **Absent issues concerning rape and incest
>
> The fetus isn't responsible for the rape or incest.

The fetus didn't even exist when the crime took place.

The crime is rape NOT impregnating.... Perhaps the crime of
impregnating a girl without written permission could be sentenced with
having a vasectomy or spending 100 years in prison. But you don't want
government in your bedroom signing and notarizing documents do you?

If it causes a mental or physical condition that endangers the woman's
life, then that needs to be treated and the debt for that paid by the
rapist. No one asks the girl to keep the baby more than 9 months.

There is NO good way to repair a situation resulting from a crime...
You have what you have, some people lose a leg and some gunshot victims
end up with a colostomy bag and some lose mental capacity for life, a
rape victim loses 9 months recovery and the effects of the pregnancy.
They all have mental scars and killing a baby won't make everything OK
just as putting a fake leg on someone won't fix all their problems of
being a victim. We don't kill someone to get the gunshot victim a new
Liver.

You can't erase the crime by erasing the baby. Killing the baby is just
making the rape into a murder. The father/brother of the woman can't
go and shoot and kill the rapist, why can the girl kill the baby?

The problem is that the rapist will just kill the woman if you make the
penalty too great. The rapist will attempt to leave no witness.

It seems there are no win scenarios.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You presume the woman locked the door.....

I say she asked the sperm to move in and make its self at home with a 9
month lease. Unless the sperm now morphed into a human life tries to
kill her then eviction is NOT an option.

[Bob LeChevalier]

That is not a statement of the right of privacy, but rather the right
of security against unreasonable searches and seizures.

<right to privacy n. the possible right to be let alone, in absence of
< some "reasonable" public interest in a person's activities, like
< those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion
< of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages
< against the person or entity (such as a magazine or television show)
< violating the right. However, the right to privacy does not extend to
< prohibiting someone from taking another person's picture on the
< street. (See: privacy, invasion of privacy)
<Copyright Š 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All
< Right reserved.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
discusses the legal aspects of a constitutional right to privacy, even
though one is not explicitly stated in the constitution.

One example given is the right for parents to have their kid attend a
private school instead of public schools. Another is your right to
possess and look at pornography (even pornography that would subject
its manufacturer to criminal prosecution).

A 1977 case said that a local ordinance cannot dictate who can live
together (in that case a grandmother living with her two grandsons).

>And By the way, I see no implicit or explicit parts of that Amendment
>that says ONE INDIVIDUAL can give the government permission to ignore a
>law that government is directed by the constitution to follow...

So?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, and I am certain that I never
claimed that the 4th amendment says that one individual can give the
government permission to ignore a law.

The 4th amendment does say that one person can issue a warrant under
certain conditions, but that doesn't ignore any laws.

>I can't give up a RIGHT that the constitution says I have, that would
>take an amendment,

Actually, you can.

People waive their right to take the 5th amendment in court rather
often.

>But government has no RIGHT to search without a warrant even if I say
>they can, because I don't have the power to speak for the constitution
>which is actually what is demanding the government get the warrant.

The constitution doesn't explicitly require a warrant. It merely says
that there a minimum requirements for a warrant to be issued in
situations where a warrant is required.

But that has nothing to do with the constitutional right of privacy.

[Bob LeChevalier]

You could read the decision,

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

which I believe said that the strip search is allowed in the case of
someone who is taken into custody, and who is to be placed with other
prisoner. The people running the jail don't need a "witness under
oath" in order to check whether someone has a concealed weapon, before
placing them in a jail cell with other prisoners.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> <Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All

[" *The right of the people to be secure in their persons* , houses,
papers, and effects,.... *shall not be violated* "]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/23/2012 12:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>
>>> They are.
>>>
>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>
>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>
> All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
> courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
> nothing to do with that.

Are you prepared to define "is" for us here?


If there is a definition that you have and mine is different and the
courts is different, whose will we use?


You and I will be breaking the law, because the court reads it
differently. This means you will have to guess what the Judge will
define "is" to mean... but the law as it was written makes no sense the
way the judge "is" defining "is".... Then there is the fact that the
next judge can change the definition and over rule the first judge.


With all these inconsistent and rediculous versions of teh same law
floating around,

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/23/2012 12:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>>
>>>> They are.
>>>>
>>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>>
>>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>>
>> All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
>> courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
>> nothing to do with that.
>
>Are you prepared to define "is" for us here?

Why would I bother?

The dictionary does an adequate job for any purpose I have in mind.

>If there is a definition that you have and mine is different and the
>courts is different, whose will we use?

Under what circumstances? In the courts, the judge's definition is
what matters. On Usenet, no definition matters. You can blather all
you want, and if it makes no sense to me, I will ignore your post or
ridicule it.

>You and I will be breaking the law,

No.

>because the court reads it differently.

That has not been determined.

>This means you will have to guess what the Judge will define "is" to mean.

And if I have even marginal comprehension of English, (and of
legalese), I will do a quite adequate job. Most people in fact do NOT
run afoul of the law, so apparently we know something you don't.

.. but the law as it was written makes no sense the
>way the judge "is" defining "is".

Maybe not to you, but to everyone else it does.

>... Then there is the fact that the
>next judge can change the definition and over rule the first judge.

That is why the principle of stare decisis arose - to prevent just
that problem.

>With all these inconsistent and rediculous versions of teh same law
>floating around,

The only thing ridiculous is your opinion.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/18/2012 7:07 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 12:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>>>
>>>>> They are.
>>>>>
>>>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>>>
>>>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>>>
>>> All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
>>> courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
>>> nothing to do with that.
>>
>> Are you prepared to define "is" for us here?
>
> Why would I bother?
>
> The dictionary does an adequate job for any purpose I have in mind.

Then Liberalism means "you" want to cut government intrusion into our
lives and cut taxes.

Given the "dictionary" definition of Liberalism you will be voting to
get Obama out of office since he is NOT allowing what you believe in
like autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political
liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and
protection from arbitrary authority.

Obama is the picture of arbitrary authority and he wants no consent he
wants total dictatorial control and violated the constitution and his
oath many times.


lib�er�al�ism
(lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from
arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual
inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity,
and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political
democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.





--
*Inalienable Lesson*
#2 - Life is like a "Waring Blender" you can toss a little bullshit in
with the ice cream, and as long as you weren't watching, it all tastes
like milkshake.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 7/18/2012 7:07 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/23/2012 12:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>>>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>>>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>>>>
>>>>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>>>>
>>>> All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
>>>> courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
>>>> nothing to do with that.
>>>
>>> Are you prepared to define "is" for us here?
>>
>> Why would I bother?
>>
>> The dictionary does an adequate job for any purpose I have in mind.
>
>Then Liberalism means "you" want to cut government intrusion into our
>lives and cut taxes.

I'm not a liberal.

>Given the "dictionary" definition of Liberalism you will be voting to
>get Obama out of office since he is NOT allowing what you believe in
>like autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political
>liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and
>protection from arbitrary authority.
>
>Obama is the picture of arbitrary authority

Actually, that is the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.

>and he wants no consent he
>wants total dictatorial control and violated the constitution and his
>oath many times.

No.

>lib�er�al�ism
> (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
>n.
>1. The state or quality of being liberal.
>2.
>a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
>autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
>government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from
>arbitrary authority.
>b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
>3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
>the gold standard.
>4. Liberalism
>a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual
>inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity,
>and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
>b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political
>democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

Odd that there is nothing in any of those definitions regarding
taxation or the social safety net. Maybe the attitude towards taxes
or the social safety net has nothing to do with liberalism.

Of course, I've seen few right-wingnuts who understand the word that
way.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/20/2012 10:28 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 7/18/2012 7:07 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> That means there is nothing that can be
>>>>>>>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that "interprets" the
>>>>>>>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
>>>>>>> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
>>>>>>> meaning within a legal context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?
>>>>>
>>>>> All words are debatable including the ones defined by me. But in a
>>>>> courtroom, certain words and phrases are not debatable. I have
>>>>> nothing to do with that.
>>>>
>>>> Are you prepared to define "is" for us here?
>>>
>>> Why would I bother?
>>>
>>> The dictionary does an adequate job for any purpose I have in mind.
>>
>> Then Liberalism means "you" want to cut government intrusion into our
>> lives and cut taxes.
>
> I'm not a liberal.
>

I know, and you're NOT a Socialist either are you....?


You are NOTHING, except that you espouse Liberal-Socialist policies.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama has powers we gave him and a bunch he stole... the church has no
power, it is a voluntary following, if you make all Obama's crap
voluntary then you may NOT be able to call Obama's authority.



--
*Inalienable Lesson*
#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.

[Bob LeChevalier]

Nope.

>You are NOTHING, except that you espouse Liberal-Socialist policies.

Actually not. I'm not into "espousing" policies at all.

I am willing to support pragmatic attempts to solve problems.

However, I oppose Loonytarian policies, because they are inevitably
the products of ideology rather than pragmatism. And I detest
ideology.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> Given the "dictionary" definition of Liberalism you will be voting to
>>> get Obama out of office since he is NOT allowing what you believe in
>>> like autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political
>>> liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and
>>> protection from arbitrary authority.
>>>
>>> Obama is the picture of arbitrary authority
>>
>> Actually, that is the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.
>
>
>Obama has powers we gave him and a bunch he stole..

He has the same powers that presidents preceding him had. He stole
nothing.

>the church has no power,

Bullshit.

>it is a voluntary following,

Not completely. They dictate the terms of your following, and it
isn't generally negotiable.

More importantly to this context, the church is often acting as a
business, and hires people who are not members of the church. They
have power over those employees that does not stem from "voluntary
following". Their relationship to those employees is as an employer
and not as a church, and they should be compelled to follow the same
rules and laws as any other employer.

You could counter that employees are free to seek alternative
employment, and I can counter that you are free to seek an alternative
country where Obama isn't president. Good riddance.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That's funny, but you needed a drum finish for that joke , bum bum buda
cymbal.... With that crescendo we would have known that was the end of
the joke and it was time to laugh.


--

*The Grand Exulted Pooh-Bah's Rumination*

#20 - It's hopeless to argue with the Liberals.... they are some form of
brain damaged situation, like a cross between Autism and Tourette
syndrome, fact and logic are stimuli that can't be processed by their
brains and the resulting frustration causes a Tourette syndrome response
of lies and curse words.