My belief is the government's single most important priority is the protection of its citizens. I include the unborn in this group, based on the fact that they were created and are alive within the United States' borders. War Slut
Yep, you admit wanting big brother to regulate life itself. From conception to grave. #270 P_A_I_ You purposely mischaracterize the posts of others, as it fits your gradually emerging agenda.
I asked you a simple question regarding the Declaration of Independence : “Does the progression 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' makes sense in syllogistic flow?” post #275
You ignore the questioned offered in a civil manner, to offer your telling question …Does the concept of a private Life, Liberty under the rule of law, and the Pursuit of private property, -- make any sense to your "syllogistic flow"? #278 P_A_I And the clear offering of your #278 post is the twisting of unalienable right to LIFE, to read unalienable right to private life. Were those your words in post #278, or not? If those were not your words, then you have a right to name me a liar, but since those were clearly your words, you are spinning when you try to call me a liar in order to divert attention from your words, from your effort to twist the clear meaning of the Declaration of Independence words. You are like Maureen Dowd, inserting words or omitting words as it fits your agenda regardless of cancelled honesty.
In post #315, you assert : 'Life begins' in a murder trial when your peers agree that one was taken. That is a patently absurd assertion. What a way to start a new line of argument! And, you’ve again tried to subtly divert the notion of unalienable right to LIFE as endowed by the Creator (now that is a religious assertion of a generic nature) to mean a right defined by a jury recognition or a court’s authority.
Also in #315, you assert : - Why isn't this done? (i.e., why isn’t your speciously arranged methodology of murder trial used to stop abortion) Because unconstitutional banning is seen as the solution.. Roe v Wade put a stop to such fiat local 'law'. The Roe decision was judicial fiat, establishing a ‘penumbra’ of personal privacy as superior to the unalienable right to LIFE. The Roe decision subordinated the LIFE of the unborn to the privacy of the host human, contradicting the clear meaning of the Dclaration of Independnce which place LIFE before liberty or pursuit of happiness (which assumes, for whatever purpose, the notion of privacy rights as essential to pursuit of happiness). [That juxtaposition of unalienable rights is an important distinctionto be addressed again at the end of this post, regarding the cloning methodology.]
It is not surprising that you would spin the fiat of Roe, where right to privacy was deemed superior to the unalienable right to LIFE, to be the standard for 'politically correct' application of the Constitution, but you will not spin that crooked needle at FR without being exposed and opposed.
Every individual human lifetime begins at each individual’s unique conception, when a unique organism comes into existence and remains alive, growing, changing, expressing its individual human life along a continuum of being. This alive individuality will occur whether inside a human host or not ... and science is on the verge of providing artificial life support to allow this unique individual human being to gestate through the full 40 weeks of change without every being in a human host once conceived. That class of individuals will be property (just like when slavery was legal but immoral) to the technicians providing the life support and as property will be fair game for killing and harvesting at any age along their alive continuum of human existence, with no protection afforded by our laws unless we the people work this paradoxical situation out now, to agree upon what and when is a fellow individual human being.
I was not offering religious arguments, but you asserted erroneously that I was.
Fine. Charactrize your beliefs as you will.
My belief is the government's single most important priority is the protection of its citizens. I include the unborn in this group, based on the fact that they were created and are alive within the United States' borders. War Slut
Yep, you admit wanting big brother to regulate life itself. From conception to grave. #270 P_A_I_
You purposely mischaracterize the posts of others, as it fits your gradually emerging agenda.
You are purposely mischaracterizing my posts to others, as is obvious.
I asked you a simple question regarding the Declaration of Independence : "Does the progression 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' makes sense in syllogistic flow?" post #275
You ignore the questioned offered in a civil manner, to offer your telling question
" Does the concept of a private Life, Liberty under the rule of law, and the Pursuit of private property, -- make any sense to your "syllogistic flow"? #278 P_A_I -- My guestion is a civil retort to your silly question. You don't like it? Tough.
And the clear offering of your #278 post is the twisting of unalienable right to LIFE, to read unalienable right to private life. Were those your words in post #278, or not?
Of course they were.. What of it? - 'Twisting' is just more silliness.
If those were not your words, then you have a right to name me a liar, but since those were clearly your words, you are spinning when you try to call me a liar in order to divert attention from your words, from your effort to twist the clear meaning of the Declaration of Independence words.
Youre a liar to insist that I am 'twisting' the meaning of those words in the Declaration. They were used with the same basic meaning in BOR's.
You are like Maureen Dowd, inserting words or omitting words as it fits your agenda regardless of cancelled honesty.
Inane personal comment.
In post #315, you assert :
'Life begins' in a murder trial when your peers agree that one was taken.
That is a patently absurd assertion. What a way to start a new line of argument! And, you've again tried to subtly divert the notion of unalienable right to LIFE as endowed by the Creator (now that is a religious assertion of a generic nature) to mean a right defined by a jury recognition or a court's authority.
Juries have the duty to establish the facts & law as they apply to the case at hand. 'Was a person killed?' is one of those facts.
Also in #315, you assert : - Why isn't this done?" (i.e., why isn't your speciously arranged methodology of murder trial used to stop abortion)
Specious? - Hardly... It is the core of the abortion problem. You want to decree women to be murderers for aborting. Sorry, but only a jury can do that in a free republic.
---------------------------------
Because unconstitutional banning is seen as the solution.. Roe v Wade put a stop to such fiat local 'law'.
The Roe decision was judicial fiat, establishing a 'penumbra' of personal privacy as superior to the unalienable right to LIFE.
Nope, it established that states cannot call abortion murder, without trial.
The Roe decision subordinated the LIFE of the unborn to the privacy of the host human, contradicting the clear meaning of the Dclaration of Independnce which place LIFE before liberty or pursuit of happiness (which assumes, for whatever purpose, the notion of privacy rights as essential to pursuit of happiness). [That juxtaposition of unalienable rights is an important distinctionto be addressed again at the end of this post, regarding the cloning methodology.] It is not surprising that you would spin the fiat of Roe, where right to privacy was deemed superior to the unalienable right to LIFE, to be the standard for 'politically correct' application of the Constitution, but you will not spin that crooked needle at FR without being exposed and opposed.
I expect to be opposed.. Exposed? Hardly. The constitution is clear. We have a unenumerated right to a private life.
Every individual human lifetime begins at each individual's unique conception, when a unique organism comes into existence and remains alive, growing, changing, expressing its individual human life along a continuum of being. This alive individuality will occur whether inside a human host or not ... and science is on the verge of providing artificial life support to allow this unique individual human being to gestate through the full 40 weeks of change without every being in a human host once conceived. That class of individuals will be property (just like when slavery was legal but immoral) to the technicians providing the life support and as property will be fair game for killing and harvesting at any age along their alive continuum of human existence, with no protection afforded by our laws unless we the people work this paradoxical situation out now, to agree upon what and when is a fellow individual human being.
Whatever. Your ramblings on 'slavery' are to 'far out' to comment upon.