you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as much love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality of life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is conciously dead anyway.
illegal immigration outnumbers birth. by 2050 mexicans will be the MAJORITY in our country. this is why our politicians are scared to secure our borders.
heh......now THERE is a constructive reply . this coming from someone who sticks his head in the sand every time i show PICTURES to support my statements. have you really stooped to personal insult now that you realize "because i said so" isnt good enough?
Now that I have your attention, I never said that illegal immigrants were not criminals. But wolf poachers are criminals too. It's just that you like wolf poachers, and dislike illegal immigrants. You are using a lot more "because I said so", than I am. And that argument, that anyone who spends time in the classroom, beyond sixth grade, must be a liberal, is just stupid. There is no other word that fits it that well.
When I told the sheriff here the same thing, she stopped talking to me, told people that I had "hurt her feelings", and spread rumors, that I was "vindictive" for asking her to do her job, by putting a guy who had broken the law, in jail. I confirmed with the D. A. in Durango, that she had blocked the investigation. Somehow, I still have faith in the legal system, overall, even though there might be abuses.
You are missing or ignoring a fundamental point here. The law is based on a form of consensus, and has safeguards in it, that cause it to change slowly. This is unlike "what Nate likes", which can change from day to day. Even "what Nate thinks is right" can change too. That's why I prefer to work within the law.
Now when you said, "spend time living with them", did you mean liberals, wildlife biologists, wolves, or slack jawed yokels? It wasn't clear from context.
I am not making anything up. You stated, that if you broke the law, that you would not tell anyone about it. You're a hard guy to pin down, but "i find fun in killing wolves" is at least suspect, that you are doing something, that you are not telling us about.
So you are condemning wolf poachers now, for not following the law? It's good to know, that despite all your talk of admiring them, at bottom you think them criminals, just like I do.
How about that little trademark dispute you had with D-C a few years ago?
Does this ring a bell:
lol......so judge me any way you care to, i really dont care. :-)
in the words of marshal mathers (eminem, which i also downloaded for free off napster and burned onto cd) "i am whatever you say i am". so long as the material is available i will continue to download and burn my own cd's. and guess what.......luckily im sure that i am the only one here that does that. .
no irony there at all. you should always follow the law. if you choose not to for what i deem a worthy cause i will support your efforts, but i still recognize that you are performing a criminal act.
thats horsehit matt. that was a CIVIL matter and we are discussing CRIMINAL matters. try again.
Trademark disputes are based on trademark law. Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell, it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to revise the time of birth, right?
-- "Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a violation of CRIMINAL law.
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
i havent argued against this. people can think what they will, most everything i do is for my children. i am a daddy before anything else, and do whatever i can to protect children whenever i can. my anit-abortion stance concerns people who use abortion as a form of birth control.
with or without the probability of recovery?
i believe in neither. i do however, believe in childs right to LIVE.
no. someone on life support that has little to no chance of survival isnt comparable to a baby with a full expectation of a normal life.
suppose a man assaults a woman who is 8 months preganant and her baby dies. according to your logic, he is not guilty of murder. i feel that life begins when you have a heartbeat.
I think you would be better off taking a stance that it is not the most economically feasible means of birth control and other alternatives should be considered... When you come out completely against abortion, you'll just get dismissed as some sort of religious kook...
Perhaps someone with more medical knowledge than I can correct me, but I was under the impression that once you've become a flatliner, you do not have a chance at recovery...
So, you're saying that you're an athiest / agnostic and against abortions? Interesting... I don't think that I've ever encountered such a person... I left open the possibility that they might exist, just like Bigfoot and the Nessie...
So, at what point do you consider it a 'life'? At the moment of conception even before the zygote forms? While it is still a zygote and has not passed through the fallopian tubes?
Correct, by my definition, he would not be guilty of murder... Now, on the other hand, if the woman or her husband / SO then killed the man who assaulted her and I was on the jury, I would not find her/him guilty...
So, you're saying that abortion earlier than about 24 days after conception is acceptable? OK, that's a start, I guess... You've now said that you approve of RU-486 for termination of pregnancies... Personlly, I prefer the shop vac approach...
Agreed, but I don't have a problem with that. I deny plenty of things the right to life by eating them, and I don't produce a child every time I have sex either. This isn't like your attitude to wolves where I'm advocating extincting the whole species :-)
Yes, but you said you do not break written law, you didn't qualify which law. Law is law, is it not?
Illegally downloading music:
formatting link
" ...downloading copyrighted material without expressed permission is illegal. Such music must be purchased in order to be legal." Interesting how you pick and choose which laws you think are OK to break, after saying you don't break written law. Reminds me of Bill Clinton arguing about the definition of the word "is."
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.