Pregnancy Decision Health Centers (1 Viewer)

[ngdawg]

...and was used to establish the 14th. amendment, end slavery and establish gender equality.


*sigh*...clinging to proven-false claims, you are.

I repeat, show where it says what you claim. I'm not making any claims, I'm reading what is in front of me. It doesn't say 'at creation' or 'at conception'. Prove me wrong.
Gender equality was NOT established. Women had no rights to property, no right to vote, nothin. nada. zilch. If they left their spouses, they didn't even have a right to their kids. If they were widowed, they were at risk of losing their house and land-as late as the 1920's, a divorced woman owning any property at all was not entitled to government assistance.
14th amendment

Please quote and link to a person claiming that the DoI is Positive Law.

You brought it up, link it up. I said it ISN'T-pay attention.

 

[tryreading]

Please note my ability to provide 3 quotations and links supporting the notion that a person is using deceptive tactics. This calls into question why neither you, 1069 nor tryreading were able to provide 3 quotations and links supporting the claim that Eric Keroack is using deceptive tactics.

Personally it wouldn't surprise me if he were, but it has yet to evidenced on this thread.

I didn't know who Keroack was until 1069 mentioned him. But she didn't say he is deceptive, but that he is the improper appointee for the position that President Bush has for him.

 

[Jerry]

And, like your compadre, you read more into a decree of independence from a tyrannical king than is there. First, it states MEN. Not mankind, not human beings in general, not 'all citizens'-MEN. The 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness was in deference to the tyranny of the King of England, not a statement of the view of conception.

I asked you what is there to compromise and you keep going back to my viewpoint, so I will ask again-what are you talking about?

Is that what you are attempting? Anti-choice is how I see it. I have no reason to use propaganda and don't do it.

Did I? Really? I said no such thing. That is your implication and conclusion, so maybe you think it is so more than I might think it is a fact. I state my own positions and occasionally post backup linkage when attempting to clarify a fact stated. What YOU derive out of my own position, 9 out of 10 times, is erroneous simply because you view it as something other than what I said it is.

No, YOU used the intimidation factor in your reply and I said I'm flattered you feel intimidated. No claim was made but by you.

I have not propagandized anything. I have not made claim to something not already said or shown, nor have I, like yourself, twisted anything said by you in order to serve my own purpose.

It truly amazes me how y'all read words never said, draw totally erroneous conclusions based on those nonexistent words, then try to turn it around as if we're on some propaganda agenda.
I don't even HAVE an agenda!:doh

If you expect a old Natural Law document to possess modern Positive Law language, then then this may be why you misinterpret what you quote yourself.

You are not open to compromise, so your question regarding compromizse is a tangent.

I quoted and linked the evidence proving my point to be correct. You stand in error.

I repeat, show where it says what you claim.

I already quoted it in #45:
<link to definition added>

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There ya go.
A thing does not exist prior to it's genesis. Before conception there is no ZEF. After conception there is a ZEF. Creation happens at conception because afterwards the ZEF is already there. Upon causing it to come into being, mom and dad endow their ZEF with the inalienable right to life.

I'm not making any claims, I'm reading what is in front of me. It doesn't say 'at creation' or 'at conception'. Prove me wrong.

You have already proved yourself wrong, and I have quoted and linked evidence countering you position a few times. Apparently "I'm reading what is in front of me" is another claim of yours which is false.

Gender equality was NOT established. Women had no rights to property, no right to vote, nothin. nada. zilch. If they left their spouses, they didn't even have a right to their kids. If they were widowed, they were at risk of losing their house and land-as late as the 1920's, a divorced woman owning any property at all was not entitled to government assistance.
14th amendment

Yeah, now if only I had claimed that the 14th. amendment, slavery and woman's suffrage were as they are today, when the DoI was written, you would have a point.

But I didn't, so you don't.

You brought it up, link it up. I said it ISN'T-pay attention.

When you reread the linked posts you will find that no one brought up any notion that the DoI was Positive Law nor currently has Codified legal standing, so there was no reason for you to assert that the DoI is not law, because everyone is already on-board with that fact.

Thus the only thing I need link is the quote proving that you, not I, are the one who brought that up; and so here it is:

.....and it's a declaration of independence, in other words, the formal decree telling King George to stuff it. It is NOT law......

 

[Jerry]

I didn't know who Keroack was until 1069 mentioned him. But she didn't say he is deceptive, but that he is the improper appointee for the position that President Bush has for him.

Ah, I see.
I stand corrected.

 

[1069]

Personally, I'm willing to give some ground to reach a compromise on the issue. Are you?

Why should we be?
My side won 34 years ago.
We have the law on our side; we have the support of the majority. There has never been a serious challenge to the right to reproductive choice.
We have everything. You have nothing.
Why should we "compromise" with you on women's fundamental human rights?

Oh, wait... we've been through this before on other threads.
Because if we don't compromise with you, then you're just going to outlaw abortion altogether, right? :roll:
Like you could really do that now, after 34 years of Stare Decisis (and counting!), with prochoice dems in control of both Senate and Congress, when you were unable to do it with a conservative prolife President, Senate, and House. :roll:

Oh, wait... I guess you had the power to outlaw abortion all along, you were just waiting to see if we'd be reasonable, giving us a chance to come to our senses and agree to compromise, right? :roll:

Your empty threats are laughable.

Do you seriously think it makes sense to "compromise" on your deepest convictions, when you have everything on your side, and your adversary has nothing?
Of course there will be no compromise... and now that these wretched Fundamentalists have fallen from grace and no longer influence politics, I think you're going to see that even the social stigma of abortion, carefully nurtured by people like yourself over the past six to ten years, will begin to fall away as well, and abortion will go back to being the morally-neutral elective medical procedure it was before Fundamentalist Extremists took office and began to influence not only national policy but also the nation's social mores and values.
Now that they've thoroughly disgraced and discredited themselves, there's no need to consider "compromise", and any talk of outlawing abortion is nothing but empty bluster.
By the time socially conservative Republican extremists come to power again (if they ever do), the right to reproductive choice will be legitimized and safeguarded by at least fifty years of Stare Decisis, rather than 34.

 

[Jerry]

Why should we be?
My side won 34 years ago.
We have the law on our side; we have the support of the majority. There has never been a serious challenge to the right to reproductive choice.
We have everything. You have nothing.
Why should we "compromise" with you on women's fundamental human rights?

Oh, wait... we've been through this before on other threads.
Because if we don't compromise with you, then you're just going to outlaw abortion altogether, right? :roll:
Like you could really do that now, after 34 years of Stare Decisis (and counting!), with prochoice dems in control of both Senate and Congress, when you were unable to do it with a conservative prolife President, Senate, and House. :roll:

Oh, wait... I guess you had the power to outlaw abortion all along, you were just waiting to see if we'd be reasonable, giving us a chance to come to our senses and agree to compromise, right? :roll:

Your empty threats are laughable.

Do you seriously think it makes sense to "compromise" on your deepest convictions, when you have everything on your side, and your adversary has nothing?
Of course there will be no compromise... and now that these wretched Fundamentalists have fallen from grace and no longer influence politics, I think you're going to see that even the social stigma of abortion, carefully nurtured by people like yourself over the past six to ten years, will begin to fall away as well, and abortion will go back to being the morally-neutral elective medical procedure it was before Fundamentalist Extremists took office and began to influence not only national policy but also the nation's social mores and values.
Now that they've thoroughly disgraced and discredited themselves, there's no need to consider "compromise", and any talk of outlawing abortion is nothing but empty bluster.
By the time socially conservative Republican extremists come to power again (if they ever do), the right to reproductive choice will be legitimized and safeguarded by at least fifty years of Stare Decisis, rather than 34.

That sounds like a fine rant against a Republican who thought that Roe-V-Wade itself could be made into the abortion ban through the Crenate, but as I am an Independent who knows that the battle is made in the courts, it doesn't apply to me.

 

[ngdawg]

Until we are all shear the same religious structure and understanding of the Natural Law premise, this issue will not be resolved.

If our Founding Fathers were correct and the unalienable Right to Life is conferred upon creation, then since what you showed a picture of has been created it has the unalienable Right to Life.

Personally, I'm willing to give some ground to reach a compromise on the issue. Are you?

Your post #45^^^^where YOU brought up something that isn't law as if it was meant to be.

If you expect a old Natural Law document to possess modern Positive Law language, then then this may be why you misinterpret what you quote yourself.

You are not open to compromise, so your question regarding compromizse is a tangent.

I quoted and linked the evidence proving my point to be correct. You stand in error

Your post also mentions compromise but you have repeatedly refused to say what it is that's supposed to be compromised on....
'Sok though...it would appear your version of compromise is having someone follow your belief system. Sorry, no can do.
The document is not a 'natural law'. It is a signed document formally severing ties with the King. The opening statements that YOU think are somehow relevant are the reasons WHY they are severing ties.
When and if you prove your claims with SOMETHING to back'em up, there is no 'error' in any perceptions. You've linked to...yourself???? Because I don't see where you backed up anything at all with facts. You didn't even get the 14th amendment right. Yea, that's telling me....

 

[Jerry]

Your post #45^^^^where YOU brought up something that isn't law as if it was meant to be.

I clearly did not not represent the DoI as Positive (codified statutes), but Natural. In that post I spoke of a common religious structure, not codified statutes.

Your post also mentions compromise but you have repeatedly refused to say what it is that's supposed to be compromised on....

Becaue your not open to compromise, so there's no point.

'Sok though...it would appear your version of compromise is having someone follow your belief system. Sorry, no can do.

You wouldn't know because your closed to the topic. If I can reach compromise with Korimere (and yes, we did reach a compromise on abortion), I can reach compromise with any reasonable person.

You're just not being reasonable.

The document is not a 'natural law'. It is a signed document formally severing ties with the King. The opening statements that YOU think are somehow relevant are the reasons WHY they are severing ties.

Not "a natural law", Natural Law. Natural Law is a type of document, not "a natural law" as you misunderstand it to be.

When and if you prove your claims with SOMETHING to back'em up, there is no 'error' in any perceptions. You've linked to...yourself???? Because I don't see where you backed up anything at all with facts. You didn't even get the 14th amendment right. Yea, that's telling me....

I quoted your words contradicting you, and I didn't quote the 14th. at all, so I couldn't have miss quoted it.

You simply have made no argument to be refuted. Your own words are self destruct.

Perhaps one day you will have a body of facts and links in place of feelings and opinions, but today is not that day.

 

[ngdawg]

You stated erroneously what the 14th amendment covered. Once again, you make statements in error and when the error is caught, you backtrack claiming you either didn't do it or it's not what you meant....you want compromise, but adamantly refuse to say what that'd entail, then blame me for your refusal to discuss.
You bring religion into it then say I'm some 'humanist/atheist' because I say it has nothing to do with religious belief.
Know what, Jerry? Even baseball games, slow and boring as they are, end...
Your double speak and backtracking are getting tiresome. When you actually come to a personal conclusion, one that resembles consistency, keep in touch. You may take the last word...I'm sure it'll be just as muddled and off-track as your others.

 

[Jerry]

You stated erroneously what the 14th amendment covered. Once again, you make statements in error and when the error is caught, you backtrack claiming you either didn't do it or it's not what you meant....you want compromise, but adamantly refuse to say what that'd entail, then blame me for your refusal to discuss.
You bring religion into it then say I'm some 'humanist/atheist' because I say it has nothing to do with religious belief.
Know what, Jerry? Even baseball games, slow and boring as they are, end...
Your double speak and backtracking are getting tiresome. When you actually come to a personal conclusion, one that resembles consistency, keep in touch. You may take the last word...I'm sure it'll be just as muddled and off-track as your others.

I'm sorry you think I have misrepresented the 14th, or called you an Antheist/Humansit personally rather than calling your reasoning Atheist/Humanist, but without quotations and references I'm afraid there's no reason to believe that what you say here is accurate.

As for your invitation for me to comeback with a 'personal conclusion', well, those are called "opinions", and since they do not represent objective truth they get dismissed relatively often around here (ie; "that's just your opinion, though"), so no thank you.