Men don't have the right to choice!
- Thread starter tomchamp
- Start date
kingpl2
New Member
oops forgot to include this linkLarry Gude said:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/roevswades.htm
please read and comment
Tinkerbell
Baby blues
morganj614 said:
And yet, women have the power of life or death over the human they are carrying.....
kingpl2 doesn't understand the Constitution either or he'd know the interpretation implied by the article of the 14th Amendment of an "equal protection" clause is bogus.
tirdun
staring into the abyss
I haven't seen such a rag-tag collection of paranoia in a long, long time. BTW, I'm ignoring the RvW page for right now, since there is SO much more interesting nonsense on this site.kingpl2 said:
So, lets comment:
MS is Evil The guy is convinced that MS is "dumbing down" users by moving interrupt requests from manual MSDOS and hardware control to plug and play control (happened back in Windows 95) people are losing control of their computers. I'd argue the opposite. How many people here even remember setting IRQs? Mouse versus Modem IRQ conflicts? Cascading IRQs? Yeah, nobody. So more people using computers is bad. Oh, and Gates is a freemason, and the DEBBIL
Bush flashes the Devil Horns Or... he's flashing the Texas Longhorn sign. I'd bet even the most virulent bush-bashers would laugh at this one.
Declaration of Independence Some... almost suported arguments that states should be seperate countries with a minimalist central government. That's great, but he never makes any argument that 13 (or 50) governments are better/less corrupt than 1.
Who Was God Anti-Trinity rant, including Mormon(?!) teachings and lots of comparisons of verses. Let me quote one line: The LORD God in Genesis was comprised of two factions; one good, one evil. Together they created the Adam as a slave then later conflicted over their creation’s final destiny. Wow.
Naturalistic ReligionYou would think if a people are close to God they would not engage in such destructive behavior and live in harmony with Nature. Nature is God and God is Nature, right? Really? So all those volcanoes and earthquakes and hurricanes.....?
VeriChip lots of anti-RFID/digital chip stuff in here. I thought that barcodes were the mark of the antichrist? I must be behind the times. For the unaware, RFID is a small chip that holds data without a battery. When you send a radio wave (the R in the acronym) it returns the data its storing. Its the latest in the "Mark of the Beast" items that the End of the World crowd is touting.
THE PREHISTORIC ALIGNMENT OF WORLD WONDERS Wow... just WOw.
He picks a bunch of "world wonders"... not the 7 by the way, and draws a line that locates Atlantis. Now I've got to tell you, the whole Atlantis angle totally caught me off guard. Changing the way I think indeed!Chemtrails: Another favorite of the tinfoil crowd that's slowly going away. The claim is that the CONtrails that aircraft engines create (water vapor, essentially) is actually a chemical spray that ... does something untold and nefarious. The atmospheric, mechanical and secrecy problems that this plan would have to overcome, not to mention the question of what those trails actually contain, do little to undermine the paranoia.
September 11th It was a conspiracy. By Bush. Yes, the president. Again, find the most left of the left and ask them if Bush had anything to do with 9/11.
Freemasonry is the Debbil. Or something. I only know a few freemasons, although I'm told that GWashington was in the club, but none seemed to be devil worshipping monsters.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
OK, that's just the top 1/3 of the links on this page. I can't tolerate but so much nonsense in one website. I couldn't even FIND the Roe vs Wade stuff from the front page, so I'm just going to pass this back to the regular debate.
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
BS Gal said:
Who runs the kids to their different sports, clubs, school-related things? I mean, I know the kids are busy helping you with all those chores you do (when do you EVER find time to sleep, poor baby), but they must have to be run to and from activities. Who helps the kiddies with their homework? Who takes care of the kids when you are working those god-awful hours?
MMDad
Lem Putt
Originally Posted by MMDad
"The Bible contains enough but not all" This a quote from you. This means that you think that the Bible is not complete. And you portray youself as a Christian?
Your reply:
Please recall there were Christians for hundreds of years before there was our Bible as canonically expressed. Do you call yourself a Christian?
Answer the question, or I have to assume you are the coward you appear to be.
"The Bible contains enough but not all" This a quote from you. This means that you think that the Bible is not complete. And you portray youself as a Christian?
Your reply:
Please recall there were Christians for hundreds of years before there was our Bible as canonically expressed. Do you call yourself a Christian?
Answer the question, or I have to assume you are the coward you appear to be.
kingpl2
New Member
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people. I choose to focus on the ideas. The Bible is part of the deposit of faith. The Bible is not all of the faith, nor is it the only source of truth. The Bible is as complete as it is supposed to be. Answering complete or incomplete does not communicate the entirety of the thought without this further explanation. The Bible also says to believe not only what is written but what has been spoken from his disciples as well. The written word alone is not the full deposit of faith. Jesus came to establish a church, which he did. He could have been a scribe and wrote it himself or faxed it from heaven but chose not to. The Bible was not intended to make the church obsolete. He has the authority to do as He pleases. He did not leave us orphans he left us a vicar from his authority, although He Himself is still the head with His Glorified risen body. I am part of His mystical body the church. I don't make up any of this myself. I don't own the truth. I hear and either accept or reject it, in it's entirety. That is everyone's free choice. All I can add is my own testimony to it's truth.MMDad said:
True I do not spend everyday on this thread only when other service to my fellow man and other responsibilities is not required. Hope this helps.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
My comment would be that...
...this is article exactly what I am talking about.
My 1st post:
The manipulation of the court docket mentioned is also the kind of thing that, we all hope, will be eliminated one day when enough people who believe in pure democracy are gone from the courts.
Roe v. Wade is HORRIBLE law and the people who support it are so terrified of losing the right to abortion that they make a devils deal; they are willing to support a precedent, Roe v. Wade, in order to get what they want in exchange for accepting a precedent, Roe. V Wade, that GUARANTEES that what they want, along with every other ennumerated right is simply a days manipulation of the court docket away and the agreement of 5 people that it, whatever is before them, is GONE.
If a woman has the right to a mans labor, or a goodly portion, for 18 years, because she UNILATERALLY decided the 'unviable tissue mass' would grow on why not his speech? If his work belongs to her, then why shouldn't she be able to make him say what she wants; "I support Roe v. Wade" or prohibit him from, say, going to a lawyer in an attempt to modify or change his settlement with her?
If it makes sense that he MUST pay her for a period of time, why can't she conduct search and seizure in his home for 18 years to simply make sure he is complying with the court order? Maybe she suspects he is earning unreported income?
Roe v. Wade is decidely BAD law for ALL of us because of precedent. Liberals have their hair on fire to make sure Alito or whomever else is to become a Justice has respect for precedent. Precedent is all powerful. It is why justices MUST be pointed headed intelectuals who disspasionatley warn to be careful what you wish for, that actions have consequence.
Roe is seen as liberation to people who only care about their feelings.
Dredd Scott honored precedent and was so honored down through the years finally having to be overturned by Constitutiional amendment.
That's a heavy tool to fix a poorly made decision.
Taney said Scott was not a citizen and thus not entitled to civil rights because he was not a man which is a prerequisite for being a citizen. He was a slave.
Well, slave or no, he sure as hell was a human being and a male one at that. He WAS a man. He was born and raised in the US. He was, by that virtue as far as the Constitution was concerned, a citizen.
Roe says the baby is not entitled to Constitutional protection because it is not a person. Well, it sure as hell is alive and it sure as hell is human and that makes 'it' entitled to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and a woman has no more exclusive right as to what to do with her body than she does to take drugs, be a prostitute or sell body parts.
Many say "better to have an abortion is she doesn't want it".
I say 'whoppee!' There's the American spirit! If it don't look to promising, kill it!'
How about dad? If he doesn't want Jr. doesn't equality and fairness demand that he to can ascribe to' better off dead' theory?
By making his wishes subordinate AND making him liable he has now had his rights violated.
Woman say "Keep your hands off my body!"
Well, maybe dad says 'keep your hands off of mine!" Maybe he could use Roe v. Wade as the basis, the precedent, for that very argument. She has no more right to the fruits of his labor than the plantation owner did 160 years ago.
It's that simple.
kingpl2 said:
...this is article exactly what I am talking about.
My 1st post:
The manipulation of the court docket mentioned is also the kind of thing that, we all hope, will be eliminated one day when enough people who believe in pure democracy are gone from the courts.
Roe v. Wade is HORRIBLE law and the people who support it are so terrified of losing the right to abortion that they make a devils deal; they are willing to support a precedent, Roe v. Wade, in order to get what they want in exchange for accepting a precedent, Roe. V Wade, that GUARANTEES that what they want, along with every other ennumerated right is simply a days manipulation of the court docket away and the agreement of 5 people that it, whatever is before them, is GONE.
If a woman has the right to a mans labor, or a goodly portion, for 18 years, because she UNILATERALLY decided the 'unviable tissue mass' would grow on why not his speech? If his work belongs to her, then why shouldn't she be able to make him say what she wants; "I support Roe v. Wade" or prohibit him from, say, going to a lawyer in an attempt to modify or change his settlement with her?
If it makes sense that he MUST pay her for a period of time, why can't she conduct search and seizure in his home for 18 years to simply make sure he is complying with the court order? Maybe she suspects he is earning unreported income?
Roe v. Wade is decidely BAD law for ALL of us because of precedent. Liberals have their hair on fire to make sure Alito or whomever else is to become a Justice has respect for precedent. Precedent is all powerful. It is why justices MUST be pointed headed intelectuals who disspasionatley warn to be careful what you wish for, that actions have consequence.
Roe is seen as liberation to people who only care about their feelings.
Dredd Scott honored precedent and was so honored down through the years finally having to be overturned by Constitutiional amendment.
That's a heavy tool to fix a poorly made decision.
Taney said Scott was not a citizen and thus not entitled to civil rights because he was not a man which is a prerequisite for being a citizen. He was a slave.
Well, slave or no, he sure as hell was a human being and a male one at that. He WAS a man. He was born and raised in the US. He was, by that virtue as far as the Constitution was concerned, a citizen.
Roe says the baby is not entitled to Constitutional protection because it is not a person. Well, it sure as hell is alive and it sure as hell is human and that makes 'it' entitled to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and a woman has no more exclusive right as to what to do with her body than she does to take drugs, be a prostitute or sell body parts.
Many say "better to have an abortion is she doesn't want it".
I say 'whoppee!' There's the American spirit! If it don't look to promising, kill it!'
How about dad? If he doesn't want Jr. doesn't equality and fairness demand that he to can ascribe to' better off dead' theory?
By making his wishes subordinate AND making him liable he has now had his rights violated.
Woman say "Keep your hands off my body!"
Well, maybe dad says 'keep your hands off of mine!" Maybe he could use Roe v. Wade as the basis, the precedent, for that very argument. She has no more right to the fruits of his labor than the plantation owner did 160 years ago.
It's that simple.
camily
Peace
First of all, he is not paying her, he is supporting his child. Secondly, if he didn't want to risk 18 years of payments he could have kept it in his pants or wore a condom. Getting a woman pregnant is a chance you take if you don't use protection. Your also risking AIDS and many other diseases. He should be so lucky as to only get her pregnant.