Originally Posted by PaleRider

The genius (not) speaks again. You don't own yourself and there is plenty of legal precedent to support that statement. Our legal system is a joke and who cares about the precedent. Thats my fucking point. If you base your views on lies then your wrong from the beginning You can start by reviewing Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990). In that case, the court established the precedent that you have no property rights in your body. Like I said a joke, our legal system does all sorts of retarded shit so what

More recently, William Catalona, a prostate cancer surgeon who worked at Washington University in St. Louis, tried to take a collection of 3,500 tissue samples that he had amassed over decades to another university. A court found that the tissue donors never had any property rights in their tissue, and so the collection belonged to Washington University. Neither the donors nor Catalona could legally force the university to cede possession to anyone else. Who cares about a legal system that is fucked anyways? Try to take a tissue sample from me and I'll take your head as a souvenir

There are other cases as well that establish precedent that neither you, nor anyone else can own your body and if you were even a quarter as smart as you seem to believe you are then you could look into your own statement and see that by suggesting that a human body can be "owned" by anyone then it is you who is advocating slavery. Do you have anything to say that the legal system didn't tell u? If you owned your body, then it is concievable that you could lose it in payment for a debt that you could not repay. Its called murder ever heard of it? If no one owns you, including yourself, then slavery, either voluntary, or involuntary is out of the question. No I have rights not because of the law but because if you invade them I'll break your face.



Didn't you see the movie? The terminator was stopped. You aren't even bright enough to name a thing that really can't be stopped.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

I would suggest turning out non violent drug offenders to make room for those who kill innocent children. I agree with you completely about that but not about locking up women who get abortions And I would impose a heavier penalty on the doctor that actually does the killing than the woman who hires him but both should rightly be punished for conspiring to kill another human being.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

That would be fine if the cost of taking care of you when you don't take care of yourself were not passed on to me. Once again your a fucking idiot thats nothing compared to smokers and all sorts of self imposed health hazards. That does nothing to your fucking insurance premiums retard. If you injure yourself because you don't wear your seatbelt, the cost of your medical treatment gets passed on to me in the form of higher insurance premiums. You have no right to take chances that are going to cost me more money.



It isn't your body that I am worried about. It is the child that has my concern. You mean the one that will be aborted despite the law your afraid to comment on?



Sorry, you don't. You may believe you do, but in fact, you don't. You apparently also believe that unborns go from being 1 cell to billions in 9 months without actually being alive. It is clear that you don't have a very good grasp of the basics of developmental biolgy, much less brain function. Try this for brain function all this shit doesn't matter since u can't stop abortions. U gotta a really thick head The thalamus is the pain center of the brain and it is connected and operational by week 8. The higher centers of the brain serve the function of telling you where exactly the pain is coming from and whether the pain is severe or mild. Without those higher centers to process the pain impulses, the unborn feels mindless agony.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

If you wish to pursue this, I am game. But take another tack. This one is a dead end for you and by now, you should know it. Your right not to be assaulted has nothing to do with your implied right to privacy.





You are the one who keeps invoking lawyer client privilege as if the accused's right to privacy outweighed another individual's right to live. In the senario you described the only information that an investigation may not aquire is private information that the accused told his council. Now should the accused become convinced, for whatever reason that his council was going to reveal information that is protected by lawyer client privilege, he can not kill his lawyer to protect his privacy because the lawyer's right to live outweighs any right to privacy that the accused might claim.

With regard to your argument about society's rights, you have yet to prove that society has any rights. I find nothing about the rights of society in the constitution.

Originally Posted by bluedog

Just who then, looks out for the life of the unborn? The one breaking the speed limit? It sure is not the one's that supposed to be upholding an unalienable right to life. Always we seem to be placing personal choice as paramount to the fact of life itself. Even a so called right to privacy does not allow anyone to kill another to protect this right. Does it? Is this implied in the constitution any where? So, by just what well does any draw upon to have this right to kill, because they have 92% of the time chosen to have another life living within them and then decided to kill that life for only the reason of social concern? Is this what is meant by SOCIALISM? If there is no freedom to have life, just what does the personal right of privacy protect? This then is no longer a democracy, but a state of fascism, as we have taken a whole group of our society and presented them to be non human by the stroke of a pen, of course this is represented by the 1.6 million unborn lives that are taken each year, by the legality of opinion only. BD

Originally Posted by PaleRider

That would be fine if the cost of taking care of you when you don't take care of yourself were not passed on to me. If you injure yourself because you don't wear your seatbelt, the cost of your medical treatment gets passed on to me in the form of higher insurance premiums. You have no right to take chances that are going to cost me more money.



It isn't your body that I am worried about. It is the child that has my concern.



Sorry, you don't. You may believe you do, but in fact, you don't. You apparently also believe that unborns go from being 1 cell to billions in 9 months without actually being alive. It is clear that you don't have a very good grasp of the basics of developmental biolgy, much less brain function. The thalamus is the pain center of the brain and it is connected and operational by week 8. The higher centers of the brain serve the function of telling you where exactly the pain is coming from and whether the pain is severe or mild. Without those higher centers to process the pain impulses, the unborn feels mindless agony.

Originally Posted by wolf_22

a fetus is pre-life. its not alive.
its not your job to worry about someone else's body and what they have in it.
we have limits on abortion so once the fetus resembles human life/is alive it can't be aborted. but before that time its no one's business but the woman's.

part of fascism is making women state property- telling them what to do with their uteruses. I've talked about this before (as have tohers). I'll save my fingers some exercise and not retype it. go review my other posts.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Because even in 1972 the perponderance of the evidence from medical science was that unborns are human beings at any stage of development.

>Please provide a link to the effect that medical science considers the human embryo and the human fetus, human beings.



It was not their place to find a balance as abortion was not, and never has been and even now is not a constitutional right.

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

OK, so you don't like my example. How about freedom of the press vs. the right to privacy? Can you think of any situations where a person's privacy has or should trump the freeom of the press? I can.

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

So, why do we put people in jail....just for punishment? Then why do we put some away for the rest of their life? I see that, in part, as an act to protect society...more to the point, to protect you, me, and everyone else. Why? Because this individual could pose a threat to other individuals, a threat that could deprive an individual(s) of their life, pursuit of happiness, property, etc. The State has an interest to protect you and your rights. But, even in trying to protect your rights, Pale, there is some information unavailable to the State due to the privacy rights of the accused.