Here is how it is done LN: It is NOT solely your choice

[Pale Rider]

:laugh2:

Don't overdue yourself. You might actually "say" something.

[nevadamedic]

Don't overdue yourself. You might actually "say" something.

Something...........:coffee:

[OCA]

Sure, she's gay or whatever, but she's not a skank. That's not necessary.

There aren't such things as skanky dykes? Pale is just lowballing her but i've got a c note that says he's right on the bullseye about her.

[OCA]

Except that we are brighter then the French. :finger3:

Do not use we, you are not a part of we.................you make Doolittle Lynn look like he graduated from MIT.

[JohnDoe]

The hell it's not. She's a filthy liberal America hater. Everytime I see that burning American flag avatar, it tells me that.

If you "LIKE" her burning American flag avatar, then I don't think much of you either.
From a bystander's point of view Pale, you are the only one spewing American hatred, towards another American here on this site! tsk tsk tsk

[Trinity]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my daughter is my possession. Not her father's, mine. Even if we were still together, I would still feel this way.

I'm not playing the 'I've had a baby" card, BUT my opinions on so MANY things have change since having a child. My daughter is my possession and I pitty the poor fool who tries to fight me on that.

I should also add that I try to fight that instinct as much as possible when the situation calls for it, however, like I said, it's an instinct. It's not really something I can put into words. Sure her father has rights, which I respect,, but make no mistake, she is my child.

I probably seem like a total psycho now, but whatever. :laugh:

No your not psycho, I feel the same way about my boy's.

[Trinity]

Do not use we, you are not a part of we.................you make Doolittle Lynn look like he graduated from MIT.


Ok not trying to start shit here,:laugh2: but don't I recall you saying something about having NM on ignore earlier in this thread.:laugh2:

[OCA]

Ok not trying to start shit here,:laugh2: but don't I recall you saying something about having NM on ignore earlier in this thread.:laugh2:


Yep, my hope is that someone will quote it so that he sees it.

[Missileman]

Yep, my hope is that someone will quote it so that he sees it.

I think your understanding of the ignore function is backwards.

[OCA]

I think your understanding of the ignore function is backwards.


Well if it is then its because i've never been an outright pussy and put someone on ignore.................ever.

[Missileman]

Well if it is then its because i've never been an outright pussy and put someone on ignore.................ever.

Does that mean you've been an outright pussy and claimed to put someone on ignore but didn't really do it? :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

Ok not trying to start shit here,:laugh2: but don't I recall you saying something about having NM on ignore earlier in this thread.:laugh2:

No im sure he doesn't. He's obsessed with me. Look at him begging people to quote him so I can see it. He's a pussy and I don't have time for his shit, I called him out on it and he said he was going to run me over with a car, throw acid on my face and hit me with a brick and not face me like a man, but what do you expect he is nothing but a little boy in a mans body.

[OCA]

Does that mean you've been an outright pussy and claimed to put someone on ignore but didn't really do it? :laugh2:

Nope, never claimed or have ever put anyone on ignore...........nice try.............liar.

[OCA]

No im sure he doesn't. He's obsessed with me. Look at him begging people to quote him so I can see it. He's a pussy and I don't have time for his shit, I called him out on it and he said he was going to run me over with a car, throw acid on my face and hit me with a brick and not face me like a man, but what do you expect he is nothing but a little boy in a mans body.

Nevada, you are disliked by almost everyone here, we have threads started on it.

Pussy? I think not, i'll fuck you up no matter what lengths I musy go to.

I am obsessed with spammers and getting them off the board.

[diuretic]

How does "dominion over your own body" derive from free will?

That question is answerable easily enough from the conservative/Locksian perspective, of course, but I want to hear how the liberal pro-choice crowd answers it.

Locke was a liberal, in the classic sense of course. But no matter, how would he have seen this issue? It's an interesting idea.

[Missileman]

Nope, never claimed or have ever put anyone on ignore...........nice try.............liar.

I was going by your response in 258.

[OCA]

I was going by your response in 258.


He has me on ignore, not the other way around.

[Missileman]

He has me on ignore, not the other way around.

My apologies then. It appeared you said you had him on ignore.

[Trinity]

Trinity steps in to the room.........Looks around goes Oh shit didn't mean to open up a can of worms..............Trinity quickly leaves the room!

[82Marine89]

Trinity steps in to the room.........Looks around goes Oh shit didn't mean to open up a can of worms..............Trinity quickly leaves the room!

Nice belly button.

[Black Lance]

How about how someone from the conservative pro-choice crowd?

That might be interesting, sure.

[Black Lance]

All I am saying is that God gave us Free will and that this might cover what you asked, who gave the woman Dominion over her own Body....and the man Dominion over his own Body.

So what is the connection between free will and dominion over ones own body? The later enables the former in may cases, but do you think it has been delegated to us by God, as has free will?



We have Free will to choose what we do in life, whether it be for the Good or for the Bad.... and from that Free will, given to us by God, we choose to follow Him or we choose not to.... if He wanted us perfect from the very beginning, He would have made us perfect. But instead, He gave us Free will...and I can't begin to understand it all, and why we were given the ability to defy God, but we were given it? Probably so that we could choose Him instead of made to honor Him, but like I said, I honestly don't know?

I'm honestly not sure where I stand in the free will vs. behaviorism argument, but let me play devil's advocate for the behaviorists for a momoment: if God gives us free will, how does this manifest itself in human actions, ie how is humanly will translated into our bodies doing something. Do you think free will is a result of something metaphysical, or is it explainable within the confines of the nervous system?

[Black Lance]

Locke was a liberal, in the classic sense of course. But no matter, how would he have seen this issue? It's an interesting idea.

Classical liberals such as Locke are usually referred to as libertarians these days. The left seems to have broken with his line of thought at some point during the Great Depression.

Locke, per social contract theory, proposed that governments could only have those powers their citizens consciously chose to extend to them. All powers not delegated to the government were retained by citizens, as per the state of nature. Assuming that the fetus is not considered a human being, the morality of abortion would hinge on either an acceptance of the dubious reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade, or on a constitutional amendment allowing for abortion rights. Otherwise, the government would have no authority to gurantee abortion rights.

If the fetus were considered a human, the government would be considered in violation of its fundamental duty, allegedly implicit in all social contracts which create governments, to defend the lives of its citizens. Therefore US citizens could, if we chose, both withdraw from and overthrow a system of government that had implicity violated the social contract between citizen and government by knowingly killing its citizens.

[diuretic]

Classical liberals such as Locke are usually referred to as libertarians these days. The left seems to have broken with his line of thought at some point during the Great Depression.

Locke, per social contract theory, proposed that governments could only have those powers their citizens consciously chose to extend to them. All powers not delegated to the government were retained by citizens, as per the state of nature. Assuming that the fetus is not considered a human being, the morality of abortion would hinge on either an acceptance of the dubious reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade, or on a constitutional amendment allowing for abortion rights. Otherwise, the government would have no authority to gurantee abortion rights.

If the fetus were considered a human, the government would be considered in violation of its fundamental duty, allegedly implicit in all social contracts which create governments, to defend the lives of its citizens. Therefore US citizens could, if we chose, both withdraw from and overthrow a system of government that had implicity violated the social contract between citizen and government by knowingly killing its citizens.

Points taken. And that's a pretty good framework to work with.

[Yurt]

Classical liberals such as Locke are usually referred to as libertarians these days. The left seems to have broken with his line of thought at some point during the Great Depression.

Locke, per social contract theory, proposed that governments could only have those powers their citizens consciously chose to extend to them. All powers not delegated to the government were retained by citizens, as per the state of nature. Assuming that the fetus is not considered a human being, the morality of abortion would hinge on either an acceptance of the dubious reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade, or on a constitutional amendment allowing for abortion rights. Otherwise, the government would have no authority to gurantee abortion rights.

If the fetus were considered a human, the government would be considered in violation of its fundamental duty, allegedly implicit in all social contracts which create governments, to defend the lives of its citizens. Therefore US citizens could, if we chose, both withdraw from and overthrow a system of government that had implicity violated the social contract between citizen and government by knowingly killing its citizens.


But is there not a Supreme Court case "making" a fetus at some point a "life?" Is this not how you can get double murder for killing a pregnant mother?

So is this a slight of hand by the government? Or activist judges?

[Black Lance]

Points taken. And that's a pretty good framework to work with.

I agree. The insistence on the consent of the governed creates a distinction between legitimate governments and warlordism that is sometimes lacking in lesser political philosophies.

It also raises some interesting questions for those who enjoy history. For instance, when Napoleon invaded Spain in the early 19th century, the reigning Spanish monarch, the most recent King from a long dynasty, was so afraid of his own peasantry that he refused to give them guns needed to fight the French army. Given this, was the King of Spain a mere warlord, and if so, wasn't Napoleon, at worst, just a glorified French warlord replacing a Spanish one? If so, does that put the two rulers on an even moral level, despite the fact that Napoleon's invasion was an act of naked aggression?

[Black Lance]

But is there not a Supreme Court case "making" a fetus at some point a "life?" Is this not how you can get double murder for killing a pregnant mother?

So is this a slight of hand by the government? Or activist judges?

There are penalties for killing a fetus, but I'm not sure if the appropriate charge is manslaughter or murder.

[diuretic]

I agree. The insistence on the consent of the governed creates a distinction between legitimate governments and warlordism that is sometimes lacking in lesser political philosophies.

It also raises some interesting questions for those who enjoy history. For instance, when Napoleon invaded Spain in the early 19th century, the reigning Spanish monarch, the most recent King from a long dynasty, was so afraid of his own peasantry that he refused to give them guns needed to fight the French army. Given this, was the King of Spain a mere warlord, and if so, wasn't Napoleon, at worst, just a glorified French warlord replacing a Spanish one? If so, does that put the two rulers on an even moral level, despite the fact that Napoleon's invasion was an act of naked aggression?

Good question. But that gets me thinking about the morality of hereditary rule as against popularly elected leaders. Not that I'd regard Napoleon Bonaparte as anything other than just another warlord.

[diuretic]

There are penalties for killing a fetus, but I'm not sure if the appropriate charge is manslaughter or murder.

At common law a foetus isn't an individual and can't be "murdered" (at common law I mean). I believe some states in the US have enacted specific legislation to criminalise that behaviour and so an individual would be charged not with manslaughter or murder (which are common law concepts) but with the specific crime.

[JohnDoe]

So what is the connection between free will and dominion over ones own body? The later enables the former in may cases, but do you think it has been delegated to us by God, as has free will?



I'm honestly not sure where I stand in the free will vs. behaviorism argument, but let me play devil's advocate for the behaviorists for a momoment: if God gives us free will, how does this manifest itself in human actions, ie how is humanly will translated into our bodies doing something. Do you think free will is a result of something metaphysical, or is it explainable within the confines of the nervous system?


Whoa boy! You are way too smart and I the opposite :)on a subject like this, for me to get involved! lol but I will enjoy reading what you guys have to say on it, if I may! :D

[red states rule]

At common law a foetus isn't an individual and can't be "murdered" (at common law I mean). I believe some states in the US have enacted specific legislation to criminalise that behaviour and so an individual would be charged not with manslaughter or murder (which are common law concepts) but with the specific crime.

It is not a fetus - is is a baby.

It can be murdered and it is via abortion

[diuretic]

It is not a fetus - is is a baby.

It can be murdered and it is via abortion

I was speaking from a legal standpoint. And legally that's the story.

[PostmodernProphet]

But is there not a Supreme Court case "making" a fetus at some point a "life?" Is this not how you can get double murder for killing a pregnant mother?

no, Roe v Wade does not define 'life' or 'human'....some state legislatures have passed laws dealing with crimes that result in the death of the unborn.....

there are some interesting state court decisions dealing with the definition of 'death' in terms of identifiable brain wave activity....the arguable obverse of this would be that if there is identifiable brain wave activity, something would be 'alive'.....brainwaves are identifiable as early as 12 weeks, I believe.....

[diuretic]

I think Roe v Wade was decided on the privacy clause wasn't it?

On your other point. The definition of "death" or "life" is fine for a human being who has already been born and may be in a persisten vegative state but I think you're stretching it a bit if you're trying to apply the same approach to a foetus that hasn't yet been born.

[PostmodernProphet]

depends on who I am arguing with....some have argued that a fetus is not a life, that argument will be eliminated by law which defines 'non-life' by means of brain waves....some argue that a fetus is life but not human....I think science also makes that argument obsolete.....the only ones I can't deal with are the ones who say it is a human life, but they don't give a shit.......

[diuretic]

Good point, context is everything.