Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:05 In article <MPG.265789a89cab1ea1989f13(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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. No. They stop exercising that right for their children by birth at the very latest. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 18:14 In article <alangbaker-098D4B.15001114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <MPG.26578a804076d8db989f15(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <alangbaker-6A8B16.13053914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > 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. > > > > Why? Why birth? What is the difference between conception, 24 weeks > > gestation and birth or 3 months post birth. The child still can't do > > anything for itself. > > Why 18 for full rights as an adult? In the US they don't get full rights of an adult until they are 21. I know, why are they allowed to vote at 18 but cannot drink alcohol? Why are they allowed to fight and die for their country at 18 but cannot drink alcohol?
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:22 In article <MPG.26579555b77bc1d7989f1b(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-098D4B.15001114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > In article <MPG.26578a804076d8db989f15(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <alangbaker-6A8B16.13053914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Why? Why birth? What is the difference between conception, 24 weeks > > > gestation and birth or 3 months post birth. The child still can't do > > > anything for itself. > > > > Why 18 for full rights as an adult? > > In the US they don't get full rights of an adult until they are 21. OK. 21. So why 21? My point is that we have recognized from time immemorial that the rights of an adult are only given to a child in stages to exercise on his or her own behalf. > > I know, why are they allowed to vote at 18 but cannot drink alcohol? Why > are they allowed to fight and die for their country at 18 but cannot > drink alcohol? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 18:22 In article <alangbaker-D1726B.15050914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <MPG.265789a89cab1ea1989f13(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > No. They stop exercising that right for their children by birth at the > very latest. You can't exercise someone else's rights and you cannot give your rights away to someone else. You need to go back and reread the definition of inalienable.
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:25
In article <MPG.2657971a960ea858989f1c(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-D1726B.15050914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > In article <MPG.265789a89cab1ea1989f13(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No. They stop exercising that right for their children by birth at the > > very latest. > > You can't exercise someone else's rights and you cannot give your rights > away to someone else. You need to go back and reread the definition of > inalienable. Parents exercise rights for the children all the time, Bert. Don't be deliberately obtuse. If a child's rights are as inalienable as you claim, why is it not unlawful confinement when a parent sends a child to his or her room? Why is it not assault when a parent disciplines a child? Why is it not theft when a parent takes a child's toy away? Because all those rights -- liberty, security of person, the right to property -- are exercised by the parent on behalf of the child. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |