Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: Frank Ketchum on 14 May 2010 14:59 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-3A06E4.11380414052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > 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. > > No, actually. > > > 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.
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 15:18 In article <55hHn.11159$Gx2.6546(a)newsfe20.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-3A06E4.11380414052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > In article <1WaHn.19457$_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. > > > > No, actually. > > > > > > 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Frank Ketchum on 14 May 2010 15:35 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <55hHn.11159$Gx2.6546(a)newsfe20.iad>, > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-3A06E4.11380414052010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> > 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. >> > >> > No, actually. >> > >> > >> > 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. Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen.
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS on 14 May 2010 15:38 On May 13, 12:18 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:10:08 -0700 (PDT), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers > > are MURDERERS" <beta...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> You're an idiot....and prove it over and over. Keep it up, we need > >> the laughs. > > >HAHAHA. You still don't get it. When you resort to namecalling you're > >just admitting you know you're wrong. > > I'm wrong? All I did was quote the law. > > At one time I thought you were a troll, but you've proved to be just > an uneducated cretin. Sorry that you live such a pitiful life, but > there's just no hope for you. > > LOL > > BK HAHAHA. Looks like i ruined your day again.
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 15:40
In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > In article <55hHn.11159$Gx2.6546(a)newsfe20.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> news:alangbaker-3A06E4.11380414052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > No, actually. > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > > 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |