Leaving the community

jls wrote:

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
jls wrote:

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.


Matt


Ah, my poor klutz, I was using the original uncorrupted Latin spelling:

fetus also foetus (fê´tes) noun
plural fetuses
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural
resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In human beings, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

[Middle English, from Latin.]

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require

religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard

time

comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?

Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
those it is anarchy.

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.


Matt

C J Campbell wrote:

snip

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
the general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now,
these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I
happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

That judge with the ten commandment fetish (I can't remember his name), now
there's an activist judge.

snip
--
Frank....H

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
jls wrote:

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.



You are truly an idiot


Matt

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require


religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard

time


comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?


Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?


Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?


Matt

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

jls wrote:


"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. cv.net...


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:



Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)




--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.




You are truly an idiot

Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require


religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
hard

time


comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?


Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
Without those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?

I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
kill/steal?



Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
given the nature of people.

This has nothing to do with religion.


The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
base yours on .... what?

What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently opposed
to religion as she is.

the word 'religion' here is being tossed about to mean any passing interest
or affinity. That is not its meaning and cannot be in spite of yours and
others' attempts to make it so.




Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

jls wrote:


"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
.cv.net...


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:



Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)




--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.




You are truly an idiot

Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?


No. You blasted the poster and you were incorrect, so perhaps that
accusation/question should be directed at yourself.

Matt

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:23:46 -0500, " jls"
wrote:


"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
.net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)

I always thought it was 21, at least for some. Higher for others.

Roger



--
Bob Noel

He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
the instant of conception.

My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
Forster)