Dutch wrote:

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote

Dutch wrote:

Dutch. What happens if you don't pay your property taxes?

Legal possession of land involves paying property taxes.

If you own and possess it, how does that involve paying rent to the
government for it?

Ask the government.

Now you're playing games.

LOL! You question the existence of the right to own property by referring
to property taxes,

No, I'm pointing out that it can, contrary to your assertion, be taken
away.

then accuse ME of playing games? You must take me for a

real dope.

Yup.

Make your mortgage payment?

If the bank holds a mortgage on my property then it is not only mine.

Drive without a license?
Walk down the street with an open bottle of beer?
Think about it.

I am violating the laws of society, and thus violating the rights of
others, thereby invoking a penalty on myself.

They are legally acquired items, are they not?

Ownership does not imply the right to use your property in any manner
whatsoever you choose.

This is what Attila said:

I can think of at least one example of a possession legally acquired

that can be forcibly taken from me. In fact, I can think of several.

This is what you said:

Not legitimately.

So there you go: examples of times and places where your legally acquired
property CAN be taken from you. Maybe you should qualify your initial
statement.

I own guns, does that mean I should be permitted to

shoot you?

It would be a good example of a legally acquired possession being taken
from you, now wouldn't it?

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9rq9429rc3m0l3b3khaav0a294302e347e@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:57:01 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <1249dvd2qp8hgb4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:

Fundamental rights are not always recognized.

Then they don't exist.

Yes they do, you are confusing them with legal rights.

I keep asking what these 'fundamental rights' (or whatever you call
them) are, where they can be found, and how they are enforced. No one
has ever answered specifically.

I can only conclude they are like religion - a concept many talk about
but no one can support. And equally useless.

One place they can be found is in your constitution. "We hold these rights
to be self-evident.." Sound familiar?

I can think of at least one example of a possession legally acquired
that can be forcibly taken from me. In fact, I can think of several.

Not legitimately.

Wrong. If I bought a Thompson sub-machine gun in 1920 I could get it
legally directly from the manufacturer. Or a BAR.

In 1935 possession was a federal offense.

How fucking old are you?

Irrelevant. I am providing an example.

Would it be more understandable if I said "Someone who was alive in
1920 could ..."?

As I said, as a collector who can prove he aquired the gun prior to the
prohibition would very likely be permitted to keep it.

In any case, exceptions do not make a rule. The concept of property
ownership is not disproved by showing examples of goods that may be
subsequenty deemed dangerous.

Just exactly what is a 'just claim' and who decides what is 'just'? It
has been my experience that this is one of those nebulous terms that
seems to be too slippery to pin down but works well in a propaganda
environment or whenever someone wants to sound dramatic without being
too specific.

In other words it's a term that you ignore because you prefer simplistic
ideas.

1.. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law,
tradition, or nature.
2.. Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals
by moral principle.
3.. A just or legal claim or title.

Very specific I see.

Quite. Not difficult to grasp unless one's mind lives in a tiny box.

It came from here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rights

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:dk9i32d6rpu7agv43nufj2a4vf5bb9d7kr@4ax.com...

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 17:36:22 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <123glo2a4cds39f@news.supernews.com>
wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:8f7f32p73or9ctnien4q65fbalb9k6sc4l@4ax.com...

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 22:17:49 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <123ehrqefc3f8a7@news.supernews.com>
wrote:

"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote

"Dutch" <no@email.com> said:

Such an admission is self-serving and hollow. It's as if proclaiming
from
a
position of privilege and power that one would have gladly traded
places
with those who died, when you know it's not possible.

I think it is possible for people to be sincere in this. We have to
judge people's sincerity.

I don't. They may *feel* sincere about it, but so what? Nobody can say
they
would gladly have not existed, it's absurd.

It seems to me that all suicides have said that, and many teenagers. I
did, once.

Suicidal depression is another matter. I was referring to the senseless
and
empty posturing that proclaims that one *would have been* quite content
to
have never been born.

<...>

But I am willing to believe, until you say to the contrary, that
you do not believe in government intervention. So, the "one step at
a
time" approach that you are following is not intended to end up with
laws against abortion, right?

Absolutely right.

Cool.

Here is my thesis:

My hope would be that if it were widely known that *a human life* begins
at
(or around the time of) conception,

Which is both wrong and irrelevant.

According to your biased and ignorant opinion.

According to an unemotional examination of the facts.

An unemotional examination of the facts indicates that *a human life* begins
at (or around the time of) conception.

Your claim that you are "unemotional" does not lend credence to your biased
opinions.

that careless intercourse and therefore
abortion would become much less prevalent.

Here we have another example of the Stupid Woman Syndrome.

How arrogant of you to suggest that.

How accurate of me to point it out.

You do appear to be an authority on stupidity.

The
assumption is made that the woman involved is too stupid to understand
that she is pregnant and if she stays pregnant the result will be the
birth of a baby. However, if she secures an abortion the result will
be that she does not have a baby.

Somehow the woman is too stupid to understand the relationship between
having an abortion and not having a baby.

I am very confident that women understand that relationship, I however am
not having a discussion with a pregnant woman, I am having a discussion
with
a pro-choice goon and the person who appears to be in denial is YOU.

But since the pregnant woman is the only person involved,

Wrong, YOU are involved in this discussion.

and since
the ultimate decision is hers, all anyone else can do is insure her
freedom to make that decision.

You are not doing that.

Your comments seem to indicate a desire to educate where you now say
no education is needed . You can't have it both ways.

No education is necessarily needed, but it may be. People like you spreading
***** only makes it more likely that it will.

Conversely, if it continues to be
more and more fashionable to believe that a human life does not begin
until
viability, or birth, that the number of abortions will just escalate. I
find
this to be a disturbing trend.

Yet you say you are prochoice? Sure you are.

I must like abortions to be pro-choice? What a strange thing to say.

No, you only need to support the freedom of a pregnant woman to be
able to make a choice.

Then why did you doubt that I am pro-choice because I find an escalating
number of abortions distrubing? You seem to think that I must LIKE abortions
in order to be pro-choice.

Your comments certainly do not support that
freedom.

Please explain how you come to that conclusion.

What government intervention would you
envision, in the case that pro-choice advocates are not honest
about
what a fetus is?

I don't know, how about a remedial thinking course?

And with "right" answers?

I would hope.

Or they have to repeat the course?

Make it a compulsory course in the 10th grade.

With those 'right answers' of course.

Correct, answers consistent with biology, not religious dogma or
pro-choice
political dogma.

And you would be glad to provide those 'right answers' no doubt.

I would be happy to defer to medical and scientific authorities to describe
what an embryo is.