From: Billy on 15 May 2010 02:14 In article <1WaHn.19457$_84.4068(a)newsfe18.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-A1F417.00590114052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > In article <7n_Gn.6403$mi.2229(a)newsfe01.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> news:l9rnu5dugg77jus2l08hs6ms20udi7bo9h(a)4ax.com... > >> > This should clear up one misconception here. > >> > > >> > The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: > >> > > >> > > >> > ...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property > >> > ...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its > >> > jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. > >> > > >> > ...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all > >> > ...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. > >> > ...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have > >> > ...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the > >> > ...right to due process. > >> > >> > >> This is the same constitution wherein we have uncovered a right to > >> abortion. > >> We don't take what the constitution actually says literally anymore. > > > > Your constitution makes it very clear on the subject of rights that it > > was never providing a definitive and exhaustive list of all the rights > > that people possess. > > My point, numbnuts, is that we ignore the constitutional rights of people > who are unfortunate enough to not yet be birthed. This non-trivial tidbit > seems to go miles over the heads of certain people. And the rights of those that you would reduce to birthing vessels? -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
From: dene on 15 May 2010 03:03 "Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly-9750D9.23020114052010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au... > In article <alangbaker-F2A53E.15033114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article <MPG.2657871a8175bc1b989f11(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > 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'm of the opinion that it explicitly states that the rights it lists > > are not the only rights that exist. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > It's not a change. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > What an odd thing for you to say? How does that advance your argument in > > this case? > > > > Fact: parents are charge with exercising various rights on behalf of > > their offspring. > > > > Fact: it is a different times that those offspring are given those > > rights to exercise for themselves. > > > > The right to life is just the first that the child is given to exercise > > for itself. > > And the right to your own body and how it is used? As in the right to use birth control and/or keep one's legs together. -Greg
From: dene on 15 May 2010 03:05 "Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly-887263.23001914052010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au... > In article <856o2qFl8fU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.2657871a8175bc1b989f11(a)news.giganews.com... > > > 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. > > > > You're wasting your time with Uncle Al, the unborn kiddy's pal. He doesn't > > believe in a creator....or much of anything for that matter. > > > > -Greg > > It's a mater of hypocrisy. Can you demand a woman take care of a baby, > when you wouldn't? Should a kid have to face resentful parents, when you > could give the child a good life? If you insist that the child be born, > then you take some responsibility. Ever heard of adoption? Why do people adopt children overseas? Answer. There are relatively few American babies and waiting for one can take years. -Greg
From: dene on 15 May 2010 03:07 "Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly-39747C.22522414052010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au... > > Always interesting, that people that are against abortion are always for > the death penalty, hmmm? I'm pro life...period. I like the idea of a convicted murderer being miserable every day of their life vs. the cost of ending it. So maybe a 6 mo. old fetus, should be available > for adoption by the state, or is this something punitive against the > mother? Whose body is involved, and at what date is the passenger viable? > Make it easy for women. Before 4 1/2 months, abortion on demand, no > questions asked. After 4 1/2 months, abortions for health reasons only > with the state taking responsibility for the baby, otherwise, it is the > mother's call. Why 4.5 months? -Greg
From: dene on 15 May 2010 03:08
"Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly-9F5114.22393914052010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au... > In article <7n_Gn.6403$mi.2229(a)newsfe01.iad>, > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > news:l9rnu5dugg77jus2l08hs6ms20udi7bo9h(a)4ax.com... > > > This should clear up one misconception here. > > > > > > The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: > > > > > > > > > ...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property > > > ...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its > > > jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. > > > > > > ...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all > > > ...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. > > > ...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have > > > ...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the > > > ...right to due process. > > > > > > This is the same constitution wherein we have uncovered a right to abortion. > > We don't take what the constitution actually says literally anymore. > > > > Glad I had a chance to clear that up. > > You mean that people don't have a right to their own bodies any more? > The state can tell them what their bodies are going to do? When it affects the life of another person.....no! -Greg |