To: andie74
How long will it take the Supreme Court to say that on a strictly utilitarian basis, your organs could save the lives of 5 people so they have a right to kill you to take them?
Also, would it be wrong for the person thrown off his property to dump a bucket of dioxin (or similar chemical on the EPA bad list) on his former property as a going away gift? One anonymous call to the EPA and suddenly all development has to be shut down and the new owner has thousands of dollars of clean up.
10 posted on
06/23/2005 9:31:44 PM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(Bork should have had Kennedy's USSC seat and Kelo v. New London would have gone the other way.)
To: KarlInOhio
(Bork should have had Kennedy's USSC seat and Kelo v. New London would have gone the other way.)Excellent tagline!
12 posted on
06/23/2005 10:06:11 PM PDT by
L.N. Smithee
(Real Freepers Don't Need Witness Protection Programs)
To: KarlInOhio
Your line bears repeating...
Would it be wrong for the person thrown off his property to dump a bucket of dioxin (or similar chemical on the EPA bad list) on his former property as a going away gift? One anonymous call to the EPA and suddenly all development has to be shut down and the new owner has thousands of dollars of clean up.
To: KarlInOhio
How long will it take the Supreme Court to say that on a strictly utilitarian basis, your organs could save the lives of 5 people so they have a right to kill you to take them?Yes. We're all utilitarians now. You were so wise to make the connection.
34 posted on
06/24/2005 11:12:14 AM PDT by
MarMema
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson