You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   72-96   97-121   122-146   147-171   172-196   197-221 
 222-246   247-271   272-296   297-321   322-331      
 
Author Message
25 new of 331 responses total.
marcvh
response 97 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 23:34 UTC 2006

So why aren't the fundies holding up HBO's Deadwood as a paragon of
Biblical morality?
twenex
response 98 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 00:03 UTC 2006

The Bible is irrelevant because rcurl says it is.

Sounds like a bloody God-complex to me.

What does God want with a chemistry professorship?
tod
response 99 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 01:05 UTC 2006

The next thing you know, they get to define a foetus as a human and then want
to outlaw masturbating.  What a bunch of perverts trying to regulate a woman's
reproductive system.
nharmon
response 100 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 02:05 UTC 2006

> What does God want with a chemistry professorship?

Indeed, why does God need a professor ship? *spoken in his best Spock voice*
twenex
response 101 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 02:20 UTC 2006

Erm, Kirk said it.
nharmon
response 102 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 02:47 UTC 2006

Spock said it too, after Kirk gets hit by lightning. ;)
rcurl
response 103 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 02:51 UTC 2006

C'mon Amichai Jeff Rollin, paraphrasing out of context doesn't become you.
I know the bible is relevant to some people, but it is not explicitly relevant
to our law making process (for which we should be thankful, with all the nasty
things it prescribes, like the one keesan cites). 
gull
response 104 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 07:04 UTC 2006

Re resp:84: I'm not interested in Biblical arguments about law until 
you propose a law banning the consumption of shellfish.  Otherwise it's 
just people picking and choosing passages that happen to support their 
own prejudices from a really long book. 
 
klg
response 105 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 12:06 UTC 2006

 I think, in general, such people have deeply shameful feelings 
about sex.  It's a difficult area for them. 

If this is true, then why do  such people  report more satisfying sex 
lives than do non- such peopld?? 


chard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richa

 If Roe were overturned, and congress passed a federal law making 
abortion illegal, you would see abortions treated as a capital crime 
like any other murder. 

If Roe were overturned, it would probably be done so because abortion 
is not a federal issue, meaning that it would again become regulated by 
the states and Congress would not have the authority to pass laws 
regulating such in-state activity.  So, once again, we see the Left 
Wing resorting to scare tactics rather that facts.

d Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard L



Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies

 Judaism finds little problem with abortion 

This is completely untrue.

*Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cr
richard
response 106 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 15:38 UTC 2006

klg abortion won't work as an issue solely regulated by the states because
of the crossing state lines thing.  It is ONLY enforceable as a federal law.
nharmon
response 107 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 16:32 UTC 2006

Sure would solve the "not in my backyard" mentality.
rcurl
response 108 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 16:46 UTC 2006

Access to abortion is also a civil rights issue, which falls under the US
Constitution.
klg
response 109 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 17:05 UTC 2006

Which article/section?

If I cross the state line and commit a murder it's a federal crime?
tod
response 110 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 17:26 UTC 2006

re #105
  I think, in general, such people have deeply shameful feelings
 about sex.  It's a difficult area for them.

 If this is true, then why do  such people  report more satisfying sex
 lives than do non- such peopld??
What such people report this?  The first person I think of when I think of
a prolife nut is the daughter of Phelps.  I think of a kook with a picket sign
showing photos of a dead foetus standing in front of a clinic.  Those people
don't have sex.  Those people are full of hate and spittle and have no
shortage of ignorance except what it says in their bible which was interpreted
5 times to them from Germans and English translator white guys.
richard
response 111 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 17:38 UTC 2006

re #109 if you cross a state line and commit a murder it is a federal crime,
but it is not a crime until the murder is committed.  illinois could not
prevent a girl from going to Indiana to get an abortion, they could only
arrest her when she got back.  If they could prove she had actually had an
abortion.

you simply can't start arresting people crossing state lines based on stated
intent or hearsay, this is a FREE country.  
richard
response 112 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 17:45 UTC 2006

Indiana also couldn't arrest a doctor in Illinois for performing an abortion
on an Indiana resident.  Indiana doesn't have the right to enforce their laws
on non-residents.  You can't make abortion illegal on a state by state basis
for the same reason you couldn't make prohibition state by state.  Because
you can't stop a free american citizen from crossing a state line to get
drunk.
marcvh
response 113 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 17:51 UTC 2006

If it's a girl (as opposed to a woman) then there are things that would
likely be done, or at least attempted, at the federal level.  There have
already been attempts in Congress to pass legislation making it a federal
crime to assist a minor in crossing state lines for the purpose of
avoiding state restrictions on abortion.  Currently this is mostly about
reporting requirements but if there were a total ban then the same basic
idea would still apply.
nharmon
response 114 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 17:59 UTC 2006

Conspiracy is a crime. If Abortion is illegal in Michigan, and you go 
to Ohio to get one, it is conceivable that Michigan could charge you 
with conspiracy. Not sure if that would hold up though.
richard
response 115 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 18:49 UTC 2006

re #114 how could Michigan charge you for getting an abortion in Ohio, unless
they could prove you had had one.  Which they couldn't do without medical
records.  You need physical evidence of a crime.
,
crimson
response 116 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 18:56 UTC 2006

Re #113: "You can't make abortion illegal on a state by state basis
 for the same reason you couldn't make prohibition state by state."
You couldn't make Prohibition state by state? Isn't that exactly what the
21st Amendment did? "The transportation or importation into any state,
territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquours, *in violation of the laws thereof*, is hereby
prohibited." (section 2 of Amendment 21)
richard
response 117 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 19:17 UTC 2006

prohibition was repealed because it didn't work.  It didn't stop people from
drinking, in fact it INCREASED drinkning.  No laws outlawing abortion would
stop abortions from happening, all you do is create a black market for them
and force people to cross state lines. 
crimson
response 118 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 19:21 UTC 2006

Er, that was re #112. You said that Prohibition *couldn't be made on a state
by state basis*, and I pointed out that that was exactly what the 21st
amendment did. It would take an amendment or a federal law to make "crossing
a state line to have an abortion performed that would be illegal in the home
state" a crime, but that doesn't mean that abortion law couldn't be made on
the state level.
richard
response 119 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 19:27 UTC 2006

No state can have a prohibition law, because as long as you have enough other
places to go to drink and buy drinks, whats the point
richard
response 120 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 19:29 UTC 2006

no federal law to make crossing a state law to have an abortion performed
would pass Constitutional muster, and you could never pass a constitutional
amendment because you'd never get 3/4's of the state legislatures to agree
to ANY anti-abortion amendment.
crimson
response 121 of 331: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 19:30 UTC 2006

Whether such a law would *work* is irrelevant to whether such a law *could
be legally passed*. Besides, many such laws were put into effect: q.v.
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_21p9.asp
for one example.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   72-96   97-121   122-146   147-171   172-196   197-221 
 222-246   247-271   272-296   297-321   322-331      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss