Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PaxMacian
Human sacrifice in the form of abortion is a sacrament to your oligarchy of doctors. However, the right to life being paramount your hypothetical is ridiculous.

I have an oligarchy of doctors? How did I miss that? Are you at all aware that finding a doctor to perform an abortion is difficult, because the oligarchy tends to disdain it?

For my hypothetical, how about an answer? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so posts. Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. My hypothetical required one of two decisions. How about being brave and making one?

387 posted on 10/30/2006 1:31:36 PM PST by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies ]


To: SampleMan; headsonpikes
Headsonpikes wrote:

Sample has made pretty clear that he believes the current drugs regime is injudicious, so I am prepared to believe that he is not being disingenuous or sophistical in this instance.

His words are clear in that he believes that the decision to make drugs illegal "should not be taken away from the People".

S-man:
If we give away our legislative right to decide to the judiciary, what is then the appeal process when the judiciary makes decisions contrary to the Constitution?

Our legislators & executives, indeed ALL of our officials, are duty bound by oath to ignore "decisions contrary to the Constitution". -- And as per the unconstitutional 18th, we first ignored, then repealed prohibition. We the People are now in the process of ignoring the 'war on drugs', -- with the exception of those who insist in believing that the decision to make drugs illegal "should not be taken away from the People".

-- there are equally some real nut jobs arguing for legalization by any means. Should tpaine think that's a reference to him, its not.

Thanks for the faint praise, and for realizing that I am not making a personal attack on you either. -- This debate on governmental prohibitional power ['states rights'] has been going on since the Constitution was ratified. -- In effect we fought a civil war about it -- Can you agree?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I noticed you ragging on Pac:

"-- how about an answer? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so posts. Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"

Amusing you can't see the irony in your own words. --- Can you -- 'Speak for yourself' S-man?

399 posted on 10/30/2006 3:50:56 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson