From: Billy on
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

"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

"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

"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

"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