Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: Frank Ketchum on 15 May 2010 09:16 "Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly-0010CE.23140914052010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au... > 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? Nobody is suggesting killing them.
From: Frank Ketchum on 15 May 2010 09:37 "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. The cornerstone of your whole argument is to completely ignore the concept of personal responsibility. To then suggest that someone else needs to be responsible for a child is... well.... let's just put it this way - You are a perfect liberal.
From: bknight on 15 May 2010 09:53 On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:37:48 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >"Billy" <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote in message >news:wildbilly-887263.23001914052010(a)c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au... >> 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. > >The cornerstone of your whole argument is to completely ignore the concept >of personal responsibility. He just demanded personal responsibility. >To then suggest that someone else needs to be responsible for a child is... well.... let's just put it this way - You are >a perfect liberal. > Where did he say that? Seems that you agree here, making you a perfect liberal. :-) BK
From: John B. on 15 May 2010 09:54 On May 15, 1:55 am, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote: > In article <MPG.2657871a8175bc1b989...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <alangbaker-9AB73F.11414914052...(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > alangba...(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. > > If you survive a ship wreck, and are in a lifeboat, and have your own > food, do you have the right to withhold it from your boat mates? > -- Yes, but they'll probably kill you for it.
From: Howard Brazee on 15 May 2010 10:06
On Fri, 14 May 2010 23:06:13 -0700, Billy <wildbilly(a)withouta.net> wrote: >When do they become conscious? When are they just a mass of cells? >What about all the other semen? What about all the wasted eggs of >menstruation? Who is going to cry for them? Should women have all their >eggs harvested, and dipped into a vat of redundant semen? Before the AMA decided women weren't qualified to make the decision, abortions were common until the embryo quickened into a fetus. This happens pretty much as the brain developed. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |