15
   

On the "worst day" of his life this father fought back.

 
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 05:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
We have gareed on definitions of parasite and I reject your use of the word in relation to a fetus as it is solely based on whether the mother wanted to become pregnant. Tape worms do not suddenly cease to become parasites if you want them in your stomach.

Quote:
Quote:
Where do they have a right to be?
If thay escape out into the environment, not bothering anyone in public places, presumably thay have a right to be there.
This argument goes against citizenship and most human rights.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you familiar with intent and how it relates to murder?
Yes.
Then your use of the word as applying to a fetus means you either have no legal training or choose to use the word incorrectly.

Quote:
Quote:
How about non-compos mentis and its application to the very young and the senile?
What about it? If an embryo is criminally prosecuted, then maybe he'll take your advice and assert that defense.
See intent above.

Quote:
Quote:
It cant invade if it comes from nowhere else.
I dispute u. If he occupies her formerly free and unoccupied space, that is an invasion (unless invited).
The sperm was most certainly invited. She grew the fetus. Your argument goes against citizenship and most international law.

Quote:
That is the chick's autonomous private business.
So why did you mention if it makes her sick ?

Quote:
Quote:
Unpaid, forced labor = slavery, in violation of Amendment 13.
So all unwanted pregnancies must end in abortion...the woman has no choice.
Quote:
It is not forced labor, if the chick voluntarily and actively DESIRES to give birth.
Your ref to the USA constitution is meaningless unless you think that is all the world consists of...am I to believe that if the woman is paid it is not slavery ?

Quote:
Quote:
How does slavery apply to the man who has to pay maintainence ?
Zero, if there is an abortion.
And if there isnt ?

Quote:
Error about the definition of killing ????????? When, where n how did I commit THAT error??
An error about the definition of murder.

Quote:
If a chick does not even own her own BODY
Apparently she doesnt if her mother wants to abort her.

Quote:
Quote:
If a fetus has no right to a womb,
Indeed he does NOT.
Then it can be killed at up to 9 months of age 2 minutes before birth ??

Quote:
Quote:
what does the mother intend to use it for?
For whatever she damn pleases, the same as u can use your house for whatever u want.
No, that is incorrect. I can not use my body for whatever I damn please.

Quote:
U distort what I said.
No I didnt. You said a rattlesnake and a fetus would share equal rights to a womb if she welcomed them.

Quote:
Quote:
A fetus does not break-in. It starts there. Where else could it start to break-in from?
If he did not break in, then he 'd NOT be there and no question of pregnancy nor of abortion 'd present itself.
That argument is silly and beneath you.

Quote:
Quote:
That decision has already been made if she consents to sex.
Nonsense; again, I set forth my analogy of an insect sneaking in
when an innocent chick has her door open for her own access or egress
Innocent ? Taking off her clothes and grunting like a price winning pig is innocent ? SNEAKING IN ????? I think she was aware, and there was very little sneaking done.

Quote:
Quote:
What do you think sex is for?
Relaxation n pleasure.
You are wrong. Sex is for reproduction. This is why it results in reproduction.

I repeat :
Quote:
Anyone reading this will see you are not using words by their correct definition,


Quote:
Y is it that u inform me about my own education?
I was not impressed with your lack of concepts of law or definitions of words. As you have claimed to be a lawyer, I think I should make you aware that I now find no evidence for this. Your argument is based on distortion and the most superficial anologies possible.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 05:38 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
The only difference is criminalizing the woman.
Stop being a kiss-arse to the womens movement. It wont get you laid.
Quote:
It's good that we have such vacant prisons and so much money lying around.
Exactly how many women are in gaol for abortion ?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 05:41 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
If they attack rights no one can live without
Are you saying no one can live without abortion ???? Logic would dictate no one can live with 100% abortion.

Quote:
It they petition to end abortion, people should petition to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion
Were you drunk when you wrote that ? It is so ridiculuous as to defeat itself without comment.
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 08:10 pm
@Ionus,
You're avoiding the point. The data on criminalizing abortion does not support the idea that it significantly lowers either the number of abortions performed or the instances of unplanned pregnancy.

So what is the benefit of putting a woman in jail for an abortion?

A
R
T
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 04:48 am
@failures art,
Quote:
So what is the benefit of putting a woman in jail for an abortion?
There is no benefit. May I refer you to :
http://able2know.org/topic/163200-3#post-4399226
First sentence.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:47 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
So what is the benefit of putting a woman in jail for an abortion?

A
R
T
Vengeance for people who hate n oppose abortion;
some of them probably figure that there is a deterent effect.

(P.S.: it was not only jail: it was PRISON.)





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:56 am
@failures art,
I don 't feel comfortable having u on MY side, F'ART.

CHANGE SIDES and resume DISagreeing with me, ASAP.





David
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 06:40 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I suspect that Failures Art is more comfortable agreeing with you than you are sharing an opinion with him. I give Art at least 10 IQ points on you, david, if not more.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 06:51 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I suspect that Failures Art is more comfortable agreeing with you
than you are sharing an opinion with him.
Maybe, but it makes me feel perverted.



plainoldme wrote:
I give Art at least 10 IQ points on you, david, if not more.
Hay, Y be so stingy??????
Since u r a deviant from truth anyway, Y not give him many 1000s ?





David
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:33 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
This has nothing to do with religion.
Ionus wrote:
Who put you in charge of deciding other people's concerns?

I don 't understand the question.
Religious people will decide what concerns them....

Fido wrote:
Religious people need to be given other problems to worry about... If they attack rights no one can live without, they should be forced to defend the right of religion by which they do so... It they petition to end abortion, people should petition to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion and assembly... You could end party politics at the same time...
Maybe u think that 's humorous ??



There is no right in the constitution or anywhere else to attack rights... We say we have the right to life, and it is for life that we have the freedom to defend rights generally and life in particular.... So there is some point where the power of society ends and the freedom of the individual begins, and that place is with each individual managing his own affairs up to the point where they begin to have a negative effect on others....People have to be free in their bodies and in their minds to be free on the street or to enjoy political freedom...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:39 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
If they attack rights no one can live without
Are you saying no one can live without abortion ???? Logic would dictate no one can live with 100% abortion.
No one can live without the respect of their communities for their freedom and sovereignty of their own bodies... Every tyranny has first tried to control access to thought, then freedom of communication, and freedom of movement, and then the right to life and in the most arbatrary fashion... You have to be free some where, and it is unfortunate that mothers do not have more rights which would give them something more to share, in a spiritual and physical sense... They know themselves if their lives are short of meaningful as only the want of rights can make it...
Quote:
It they petition to end abortion, people should petition to amend the constitution to disallow freedom of religion
Were you drunk when you wrote that ? It is so ridiculuous as to defeat itself without comment.
The churches have too many rights which we all defend if they think they have the right to curtail anyone elses with a vote... A vote is a right to help guide ones community and is not about attack the people who make up the nation...
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 09:14 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
There is no right in the constitution
Have u READ the Constitution ?



Fido wrote:
or anywhere else to attack rights...
Have u READ everywhere else ??





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 09:18 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
The churches have too many rights
Which is the CORRECT number of rights that churches shoud HAVE ?





David
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 12:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido wrote:
There is no right in the constitution
Have u READ the Constitution ?



Fido wrote:
or anywhere else to attack rights...
Have u READ everywhere else ??





David
Yes and yes... There is no right that is not just, and for that reason German and French words for law are both : Right. The constitution says what its goals are, and each is a clear statement of right, that is good that it hopes to achieve... There is absolutly no right to attack rights listed as that would be a contradiction of the aim of justice and the aim of unity, and the aim of domestic tranquility... You cannot have a nation without rights that are mutual and mutually defended... The reason Property rights in continually in conflict with real rights is that they are not enjoyed equally, and those with more property have more rights and clearly more say in government... We are a house divided...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 12:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido wrote:
The churches have too many rights
Which is the CORRECT number of rights that churches shoud HAVE ?





David
The right to peacably assemble... The have no right to conspire against all our rights as they have on countless occasions... Or interfere in elections... We have our union, and any other union had better be able to show that it does not stand to defeat the aims of our commonwealth and common union... Otherwise, they are not practicing religion, but treason, hoping to get it right
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 07:58 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
If they attack rights no one can live without
If babies are killed in their mother's womb then it will be life they will be without, never mind their rights.
Quote:
So there is some point where the power of society ends and the freedom of the individual begins, and that place is with each individual managing his own affairs up to the point where they begin to have a negative effect on others
Being killed in a mother's womb is a fairly negative effect dont you think ?
Quote:
People have to be free in their bodies and in their minds to be free on the street or to enjoy political freedom...
Pass the weed, you've been hogging it.....what a lot of impractical theoretical rubbish. How are the poor free ? If the economy fails and you have no work, how much freedom have you lost ?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:01 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
they think they have the right to curtail anyone elses with a vote
And you know what ? They are right...they do have the right to curtail others with a vote. It is you who wants more power than his vote provides that is the worry.
Quote:
A vote is a right to help guide ones community and is not about attack the people who make up the nation...
Was there a flag waving in the camera shot when you said that ? A vote is a selfish act and if it isnt you are using it incorrectly.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:04 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
Yes and yes... There is no right that is not just, and for that reason German and French words for law are both : Right. The constitution says what its goals are, and each is a clear statement of right, that is good that it hopes to achieve... There is absolutly no right to attack rights listed as that would be a contradiction of the aim of justice and the aim of unity, and the aim of domestic tranquility... You cannot have a nation without rights that are mutual and mutually defended... The reason Property rights in continually in conflict with real rights is that they are not enjoyed equally, and those with more property have more rights and clearly more say in government... We are a house divided...
Its a little rambling but am I to understand you think the right to abort is in the USA Constitution ? Are you aware that is probably the last thing they wanted to legalise in formulating rights ?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:06 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
The have no right to conspire against all our rights as they have on countless occasions.......they are not practicing religion, but treason
Is that applicable to all political parties and opinions or just the ones you dont like ?
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 08:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Quote:
I suspect that Failures Art is more comfortable agreeing with you
than you are sharing an opinion with him.
Maybe, but it makes me feel perverted.
Very Happy Good one, Dave...
Quote:
Quote:
I give Art at least 10 IQ points on you, david, if not more.
Hay, Y be so stingy??????
Do you notice how you can only be intelligent if you agree with them ? I wonder what is the basis for their "facts" ?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2024 at 07:30:28