Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: dene on 14 May 2010 16:47 "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message news:a0iHn.5394$rE4.2372(a)newsfe15.iad... > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message > news:855od9FlraU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > > news:hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >> > In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, > >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children > > only > >> >> > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain > >> >> > ages. > >> >> > >> >> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. > >> > > >> > Why? > >> > > >> > You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is mine > >> > different? > >> > > >> > Try and say something that actually addresses the point. > >> > >> If a parent gives consent to kill their child... > > > > Exactly. Baker's isn't presenting a serious argument. He's just > > trolling. > > Sadly, I don't think so. I think he is really that much of a cement head. > That's why I'm not wasting anymore time with him on this. Good choice. -Greg
From: Moderate on 14 May 2010 16:58 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-6A8B16.13053914052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> > In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: >> > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> >> > >> >> > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children >> >> > only >> >> > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain >> >> > ages. >> >> >> >> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. >> > >> > Why? >> > >> > You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is mine >> > different? >> > >> > Try and say something that actually addresses the point. >> >> If a parent gives consent to kill their child... > > As I said: rights held in trust are given to the child at different > times. > > The right to life is given over at birth. We have gone well away from the Constitution on this one.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:13 In article <alangbaker-9AB73F.11414914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > What rights are not codified in the US constitution as the US > > constitution exists today? > > The document is very clear that there are rights in doesn't enumerate. > > You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? > > > > > If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders. > > However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be > > charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead > > either way. > > Parents hold their offsprings rights in trust. A parent can decide that > they will move self and child across the country and if the child > doesn't like it, confine the child to his or her room. > > But if a third party does that, it's called kidnapping. > > What's the difference in that case? Are you of the opinion that the US constitution is a living document? I am of the opinion that if you want to change the US constitution you do it through the process it defines and get an amendment passed. The problem is that rights come from the creator and the creator did not and will not give you the "right" to steal your neighbors property to fund your desires. A document that is one of the base documents of our laws specifically proscribes stealing.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:24 In article <alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > > > We accept that children's rights are held in trust by their parents, and > > > as a society, we've come to believe that the right to life is one that > > > the the mother holds in trust until the child is born. > > > > You miss the point. The underlying idiotic premise is that at some point a > > fetus is a life only if the mother wants it to be a life. If she doesn't > > want it to be a life, it legally isn't and can be terminated. If the mother > > wants it to be a life it legally is. For example, a person causing death to > > the would-be mother who intended on keeping the baby can be charged with > > double homicide (murder, manslaughter etc). Never mind the fact that the > > same mother could have walked into an abortion clinic the next day and > > terminate the pregnancy herself legally. > > > > The whole issue is a giant joke. > > And if someone takes your child across the country to a new location and > holds them there, it's kidnapping unless they do it at the behest of the > parents, then it's fine. > > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children only > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain ages. Are you advocating that the parents can choose to kill their children if they want to, you know if the children become inconvenient or a bother.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:27
In article <alangbaker-A71DED.13063314052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <a0iHn.5394$rE4.2372(a)newsfe15.iad>, > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message > > news:855od9FlraU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > > > news:hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > >> > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >> news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > >> > In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, > > >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >> >> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children > > > only > > >> >> > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain > > >> >> > ages. > > >> >> > > >> >> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. > > >> > > > >> > Why? > > >> > > > >> > You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is mine > > >> > different? > > >> > > > >> > Try and say something that actually addresses the point. > > >> > > >> If a parent gives consent to kill their child... > > > > > > Exactly. Baker's isn't presenting a serious argument. He's just > > > trolling. > > > > Sadly, I don't think so. I think he is really that much of a cement head. > > That's why I'm not wasting anymore time with him on this. > > So explain why sending a child to his or her room is not reason for a > charge of forcible confinement... Is the resentment from your childhood coming through? Spend a little too much time locked in your room? |