Religions > Atheism > Re: Let Us Not Forget Them: A Resting Place For Over 1,000 AbortedBabies In Milwaukee
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"M_P" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2007 02:29:54 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Let Us Not Forget Them: A Resting Place For Over 1,000 AbortedBabies In Milwaukee |
On Sep 12, 8:15 am, Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:00:50 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:18 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:54:05 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - MP
So, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the woman removing
the fetus.
False. Which part of "in and of itself" did you not understand?
The part that YOU use to support the same argument. You can't have it
both ways just because it's your opinion.
Now you're just babbling.
I'm stating that YOUR argument defeats YOUR argument.
Wrong; you still don't understand "in and of itself." The right to
life does not in and of itself imply the right to be given what you
need in order to live ... but the right to life does in conjunction
with another condition imply the right to be given what you need in
order to live (that other condition being having been caused by
another to need things in order to live).
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Let Us Not Forget Them: A Resting Place For Over 1,000 Aborted Babies In Milwaukee |
15 Nov 2007 07:53:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:54 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:15 am, Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:00:50 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:18 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:54:05 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - MP
So, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the woman removing
the fetus.
False. Which part of "in and of itself" did you not understand?
The part that YOU use to support the same argument. You can't have it
both ways just because it's your opinion.
Now you're just babbling.
I'm stating that YOUR argument defeats YOUR argument.
Wrong; you still don't understand "in and of itself." The right to
life does not in and of itself imply the right to be given what you
need in order to live ... but the right to life does in conjunction
with another condition imply the right to be given what you need in
order to live
The only "other condition" would be a legally binding contract, and
the fetus isn't competent to be party to a contract, so that condition
doesn't obtain.
(that other condition being having been caused by
another to need things in order to live).
Sorry, no, it's being alive that causes the need, and intent is an
important part of contract law. If the woman had no intent to create
a life, no contract is formed.
(Your "ought to" rights are meaningless, since you can't enforce them
without breaking the law.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably
giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Let Us Not Forget Them: A Resting Place For Over 1,000 AbortedBabies In Milwaukee |
16 Nov 2007 02:52:42 PM |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:54 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:15 am, Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:00:50 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:18 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:54:05 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - MP
So, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the woman removing
the fetus.
False. Which part of "in and of itself" did you not understand?
The part that YOU use to support the same argument. You can't have it
both ways just because it's your opinion.
Now you're just babbling.
I'm stating that YOUR argument defeats YOUR argument.
Wrong; you still don't understand "in and of itself." The right to
life does not in and of itself imply the right to be given what you
need in order to live ... but the right to life does in conjunction
with another condition imply the right to be given what you need in
order to live
The only "other condition" would be a legally binding contract [...]
You mean the only other condition that YOU claim could be relevant.
(that other condition being having been caused by
another to need things in order to live).
Sorry, no, it's being alive that causes the need,
And it's the woman and the man (or turkey baster) that caused the
life.
and intent is an
important part of contract law. If the woman had no intent to create
a life, no contract is formed.
Intent is not a necessary condtion; if I'm in the street batting
baseballs and accidentally break your window, I acquire an obligation
to you regardless of intent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Let Us Not Forget Them: A Resting Place For Over 1,000 Aborted Babies In Milwaukee |
17 Nov 2007 12:06:02 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:52:42 -0800 (PST), M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:54 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:15 am, Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:00:50 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:18 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:54:05 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - MP
So, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the woman removing
the fetus.
False. Which part of "in and of itself" did you not understand?
The part that YOU use to support the same argument. You can't have it
both ways just because it's your opinion.
Now you're just babbling.
I'm stating that YOUR argument defeats YOUR argument.
Wrong; you still don't understand "in and of itself." The right to
life does not in and of itself imply the right to be given what you
need in order to live ... but the right to life does in conjunction
with another condition imply the right to be given what you need in
order to live
The only "other condition" would be a legally binding contract [...]
You mean the only other condition that YOU claim could be relevant.
How is a right you have no way to exercise relevant to anything but
your tantrum?
(that other condition being having been caused by
another to need things in order to live).
Sorry, no, it's being alive that causes the need,
And it's the woman and the man (or turkey baster) that caused the
life.
But it's not being caused to be alive that causes the need, it's BEING
alive that causes it. Stop equivocating.
and intent is an
important part of contract law. If the woman had no intent to create
a life, no contract is formed.
Intent is not a necessary condtion
It is NECESASARILY a condition in this case. Since the ONLY one who
has the right to decide whether she continues a pregnancy is the
pregnant woman, HER INTENT is ALL that matters. If you think it
matters to you, let us know when you finish your tantrum.
if I'm in the street batting
baseballs and accidentally break your window
If it's your window, you do what you want - replace it, freeze or
move. No one else has the right to tell you what to do about it. The
pregnant woman didn't get someone else pregnant - SHE'S the one who's
pregnant, so SHE'S the one who gets to decide what to do about it.
When you grow up, tell someone else to tell me to take you out of my
killfile, but I doubt you'll be growing up enough soon enough for it
to matter - I expect to be dead long before 2050.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Let Us Not Forget Them: A Resting Place For Over 1,000 AbortedBabies In Milwaukee |
11 Jan 2008 04:55:33 PM |
|
|
On Nov 17 2007, 12:06 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:52:42 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:54 -0800 (PST), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:15 am, Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:00:50 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:18 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:54:05 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - MP
So, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the woman removing
the fetus.
False. Which part of "in and of itself" did you not understand?
The part that YOU use to support the same argument. You can't have it
both ways just because it's your opinion.
Now you're just babbling.
I'm stating that YOUR argument defeats YOUR argument.
Wrong; you still don't understand "in and of itself." The right to
life does not in and of itself imply the right to be given what you
need in order to live ... but the right to life does in conjunction
with another condition imply the right to be given what you need in
order to live
The only "other condition" would be a legally binding contract [...]
You mean the only other condition that YOU claim could be relevant.
How is a right you have no way to exercise relevant to anything but
your tantrum?
One exercises one's right to life by living. If you meant "How is a
right you have no way to DEFEND relevant to anything" ... ask any
quadriplegic who wants to live.
(that other condition being having been caused by
another to need things in order to live).
Sorry, no, it's being alive that causes the need,
And it's the woman and the man (or turkey baster) that caused the
life.
But it's not being caused to be alive that causes the need, it's BEING
alive that causes it. Stop equivocating.
Stop hairsplitting. If one has been caused to be alive then one is
alive.
and intent is an
important part of contract law. If the woman had no intent to create
a life, no contract is formed.
Intent is not a necessary condtion
It is NECESASARILY a condition in this case. Since the ONLY one who
has the right to decide whether she continues a pregnancy is the
pregnant woman, HER INTENT is ALL that matters. If you think it
matters to you, let us know when you finish your tantrum.
if I'm in the street batting
baseballs and accidentally break your window
If it's your window, you do what you want - replace it, freeze or
move. No one else has the right to tell you what to do about it. The
pregnant woman didn't get someone else pregnant
She caused someone else to need here bodily resources in order to
survive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
