So you don't have a rational argument. Nothing more than a childish rant? Somehow, I am not surprised. And since your views are not based in any sort of fact, then by your own admission, you have lost from the beginning.

Threats now? For all you know, someone, or a host of someones already posess any number of tissue samples from you (you have been to the doctor in your life have you not) and you not only would not have a clue, but would be powerless to do anything about it if you did. You are little more than a gassbag, bloviating your foolishness across this board.

You really aren't very bright. Can you grasp the concept of owing a debt? How about causing damages that a court says that you must repay? If you owned your body then it is concievable that you might have to forfiet it as property to another individual to whom you owe a debt that you don't have enough money, or other property to pay.

Suppose you have an auto accident with someone and cripple them for the rest of their lives to the extent that they can never work again. Now suppose that person is in their 30's and makes 25 or 30 million dollars per year. In court, you are not only going to be made to pay their medical bills, but you can be made to compensate them for lost wages. Figure 25 million a year until age 65 and you can see that your liability insurance isn't going to cover you.

You could lose everything you own in payment to that person you injured. If you also own your body, it is concievable that you could find yourself owned by the person you injured as a slave for life. Because such things could happen by the letter of the law, it is important that we never own our bodies, and so we don't.

Actually, if you start breaking faces you will find that your rights don't get you very far when you start violating other's rights. Take StormanNorman's example of verbal harrasment for example. Suppose you are walking down the street and someone is following you around saying that you suck. You have a right not to be harassed in such a matter, but if you "break their face" you will find yourself in jail. While you have the right to not be harrassed, you don't have the right to hit someone who is exercising their right to speak. The law can tell them that they may not speak at certain times, and certain places, in a certain manner, but you may not. If you hit them, even though they were technically harassing you, then you are guilty of a greater assault and you will be jailed.

Suppose that the someone who was harassing you was someone you knew and they wanted you in jail. It would be a good plan. Tease carson, take a punch in the nose and see him in sit in jail for the next 6 months keeping his new boyfriend bubba happy. All because you weren't smart enough to see through their plan. All because you believe that "breaking faces" is a workable solution to your problems.

People like you, carson, are to be pitied.

Poor little not so bright carson. You can't stop people from learning things. The government has no right to keep me from learning anything I want so long as it isn't a national security secret. I can spend years learning to make bombs and timers if I like and the government can't do anyting to me. They may watch me but are powerless to actually do anything to me so long as I don't take my knowledge of bombmaking and put it into practice by illegally blowing something up. By the same token, you can't prevent a doctor from learning to do abortions. If abortion is illegal, and he puts it to use, however, you can punish him.

And once again, no law can stop anything. Laws against murder don't stop murder, they only provide a means to punish those who do it anyway. Laws against abortion will not stop abortion, but they will provide a means to punish the women and doctors who do it anyway. This isn't rocket surgury carson, it is really funny that you aren't able to grasp something this simple.

Is name calling really all you have? So far, you haven't made a single valid point. If name calling is the best you can do, then why bother?

I have not only commented, but have exposed the stupiditiy of yoru argument. Any of us could be killed at any time, carson, by a complete stranger. It is against the law for him or her to do it, but he or she can do it anyway for any or no reason. The law can't stop them from doing it. The law is to provide a means of punishing them if they do. The law can't stop abortions, the law is to punish those who do it anyway.

Since doctors don't put the children to sleep before they begin the abortion, it doesn't matter. To the child who is being murdered, it is all the same.

That is called substantiating your argument carson. That is how you effectively debate a subject. As opposed to you who simply spews unsubstantiated, uncorrobrated BS all over the board when you aren't impotently calling a complete stranger names.

I pity you more all the time carson. It must really suck being you, wanting to say intelligent but being completely unable to come up with anything better than calling people retards, making impotent threats, and making banal meaningless statements.

Here you not only make my point, but prove yourself wrong at the same time. The fact that it used to be legal to own slaves but isn't any more is proof that the law can change. And look around? Do you see any slave markets? Do you see anyone out in the fields working their slaves? Of course you don't, because it is against the law very few people are willing to traffic in slaves anymore. I am sure that there is some underground slavery going on, but they have to hide to do it, and if they are caught, the punishment is very severe.

Sorry, you are going to have to rewrite this one. It is jibberish and doesn't make any sense at all. If you are going to hurl insults at someone, the least you could do is try to hurl insults that make sense.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

LIAR

We have been through this wolf. Unborns are as alive as you. Now if you can provide some credible science that states that unborns aren't acutally alive or that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being, then feel free to make statements like the one abobe, but since I have provided you with facts a number of times that prove that you are wrong, anytime you say that unborns aren't alive, you are simply lying and I am going to point out that you are a bald faced liar every time I see you say it.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.” E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

If that were true, we wouldn't have drug laws.

At 8 weeks, when most abortions are performed, the child has a face, two eyes, one nose, a mouth, two ears, two arms, two legs, 10 fingers, ten toes, fingerprints and footprints. Which part of that doesn't resemble a human being to you?

That has nothing to do with fascism. Not only do you not have a grasp of even the most basic developmental biology, but now you have proven that you don't have any sort of actual understanding of political philosophy either. And reviewing your past posts would only give one an expanded view of how much you don't know and on what sort of tripe your postions are based.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

No you don't and there is plenty of legal precedent to prove it. You seem to beleve that just because you say a thing that it is true. I have news for you dearie, it doesn't. You say unborns are not alive even though you can't provide even the smallest scrap of credible science that says you are right and you can claim that you own your body even though legal precedent says that you don't.

Are you really carson under a different name?

Once again, you are wrong. If you knew anything at all about brain function, you would know that our frontal lobes aren't even part of the picture. The frontal lobes are associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving. Since you are obviously ignorant as to what part of the brain does what, allow me to continue. The parietal lobe is associated with movement, orientation, recognition, and fine perception of stimuli and sensory discrimination. Without the parietal lobe, the ability to differentiate between the types of pain and the severity of the pain is lost and all pain would be simply percieved as agony. The occipital lobe is associated with visual processing.

What you "judge" is irrelavent if facts exist that prove your judgement wrong. The fact is that unborns are, without question, living human beings. Your "judgement" is nothing more than a lie that you tell yourself in an effort to keep your own guilt from overwhelming you.

And following your logic, newborns aren't human beings because their minds don't begin to work in any way that resembles the way an adult brain works for months after they are born.

I hold a degree in biochemistry. I graduated from the University of Florida at Gainsville. What my qualifications are irrelavent. Anyone can do a bit of research and learn the truth. It isn't my degree that makes me right with regard to whether or not unborns are living human beings, it is the fact that I can provide credible science that states that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. If a 4th grader presented you with credible science that states that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved, that 4th grader would be just as right as I am because I base my postion on the same indisputable research.

Wolf, you are, today, exactly the same individual you were at the time you were concieved. You didn't come from an adolescent, you were an adolescent. You didn't come from a toddler, you were a toddler. You didn't come from an infant, you were an infant. You didn't come from a fetus, you were a fetus and you didn't come from a zygote, you once actually were a zygote. You have been the same living human being ever since you were first concieved. You can trace your entire life back to that one point in time. You have been alive since that time and you have been nothing but a human being at one stage of your development or another during that time. There has never been a time when you, as the individual that you are, have not been alive, or have not been a human being.

A fetus isn't just some "thing" that doesn't deserve to live. It is exactly as human as you, and every bit as much alive as you. It is simply not as mature. You have never been less human than you are today and you have never been less alive than you are today.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Opening your chest and removing your heart could be construed as a medical proceedure. It is an illegal medical proceedure because you are a human being and have the right to live. There are any number of "medical proceedures" that a doctor could perform that are illegal exactly because they would violate the rights of another human being.

Thanks for playing, feel free to get a real argument and try again.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Someone said "I own my own body, end of story."



No you don't- the State owns your body:

-If it is your body then why is suicide illegal?

-Why are many drugs illegal? No one else gets hurt (victomless crime)

-Why can't you legally sell your body through prostitution?

-Why can't you ingest alcohol until 21 while you are an adult at 18?

-How can they draft your body and ship it off to war?

-Why can't you leave your body wherever you want (loitering)

-Why must your body be accompanied with State papers (I.D.) for many transactions and traveling?

-Why must your body be certified to work many jobs?

-Why must your body be clothed in public?

-Why must the bodies of those deemed mentally ill be forced to take drugs that they do not want?

I'm reaching on a few of these, but most make the point clear that you really do not have control over your own body in general.

Whose body dies because of abortion? The child had no power over its own body.

__________________
FREE THE SHEEPLE!

You asked for the following, Pale...
So, I did. Now, none of these involved the right to life....I can't think of a situation or court ruling where any other right (explicit or implied) outweighed a person's right to life.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

California Supreme Court held that “the public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”
Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of CA

The sameis true of attorney client privlege. If the attorney has specific knowledge he got from his client with regard to someone else's life that was in danger by his client, the attorney must divulge the information or he becomes an accessory if that person is actually killed.

Also see:

State v. Joy Major Hoop

Clip:

"Appellant now argues that trial counsel was ineffective for pursuing the witness in this manner and should have conducted an investigation instead of attempting to obtain the name of the witness by means of the motion. Appellant contends that counsel was ineffective because he "did not understand hornbook law that the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine applied to agents of a co-defendant's attorney." First, we note that the above statement is contrary to this court's determination of the privilege issue in Hoop I. In that case, we explained that the privilege is not inviolate and can be overcome under certain circumstances. See Hoop I. "

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

This all makes sense, Pale...but, still, many aspects of these relationships are protected and can not be used by the State against the accused....even if it would help gain a conviction. There is some level of privacy here. Privacy is not absoluted....no right is absolute.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

None the less, no right to privacy or implied right to privacy that a woman, or anyone else for that matter, might claim can justly extend to killing another human being to protect that privacy.

If you are interested in seeing more information showing that doctor client privileges or attorney client privileges or any other " "/ client privilege is not absolute, I can provide links.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You mean to kill another person....and I agree with that. I can't think of a case where privacy would trump the right to life.
Pale, I never said that privacy was absolute....clearly, it is not an absolute right...in fact, no right is absolute. You originally said that there was no right to privacy. Clearly, that is incorrect. There is a right to privacy and has been established via case law. It is not absolute mind you...but it exists. Then you seemed to claim that it is secondary to or never trumps explicit rights. Again, I think you are wrong.
- Like I said to shadow, the Constitution doesn't delineate rights (explicit or implied) in terms of their importance. When they come into conflict, it will very much depend on the situation.....although it's clear that the right to life (one's safety) wins out in most if not all cases.
- I gave you my "walking down the street" example. You didn't like it, but I thought it was a good example. However, there certainly are others. Privacy has recently stifled freedom of the press rights in some instances.
- The attorney/client and doctor/patient privilege is another case where privacy certainly holds some weight. Even in a capital murder trial, there could be information that is off limits to the State because of the privacy rights of the accused.

Privacy exists, Pale...now whether or not it is a legitimate argument in support of abortion comes down to the whole personhood/viability argument again. That is the crux of the argument. If the courts decide that the unborn are persons, then they will be protected by the 14th Amendment and Row v. Wade crashes.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...