Question
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Just because a person has a right to do X doesn't mean they should necessarily have the right to do Y.
So you agree that its a constitutional right? What amendment? The argument of the abortionists is that a women has the constitutional right to do what they want with their bodies (which is dumb because its the childs body being destroyed not the women's). Why cant I do what I want with mine and smoke marijuana?
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
So you agree that its a constitutional right?
I have no idea. I was simply pointing out that the argument that because person a has one right another should have a differnt right isn't sound.
Steve
-
Let me correct me myself: you're a stupid tosser.
Captain See Sharp wrote:
If it is really a women's constitutional right to have an abortion then why isn't it my constitutional right to smoke marijuana?
To which I replied:
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Just because a person has a right to do X doesn't mean they should necessarily have the right to do Y. Not that I give a sh*t if you choose to smoke marijuana.
The point is that just because a person has the right to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean another should have the right to do a different thing.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
The point is that just because a person has the right to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean another should have the right to do a different thing.
But they both fall under the same category if you go along with "the constitutional right for a women to do what she wants with her body" so they are not all that different. However I do believe they are completely different things.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
So you agree that its a constitutional right?
I have no idea. I was simply pointing out that the argument that because person a has one right another should have a differnt right isn't sound.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I was simply pointing out that the argument that because person a has one right another should have a differnt right isn't sound.
See above But they both fall under the same category if you go along with "the constitutional right for a women to do what she wants with her body" so they are not all that different. However I do believe they are completely different things.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Where the hell in the Bill of Rights does it say you are allowed to have an abortion? I keep hearing that it is your constitutional right but I would like to know what amendment "allows" it? :rolleyes: If it is really a women's constitutional right to have an abortion then why isn't it my constitutional right to smoke marijuana?
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
If it is really a women's constitutional right to have an abortion then why isn't it my constitutional right to smoke marijuana?
'cause mary jane don't help the good ol' boys keep up their appearances... (that was a rhetorical question, right?)
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I was simply pointing out that the argument that because person a has one right another should have a differnt right isn't sound.
See above But they both fall under the same category if you go along with "the constitutional right for a women to do what she wants with her body" so they are not all that different. However I do believe they are completely different things.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
But they both fall under the same category
Far from it, the impacts of the drug business go far beyond the physical impact of the end user
Josh Gray wrote:
Far from it, the impacts of the drug business go far beyond the physical impact of the end user
Well, alcohol seems to be more harmful than marijuana, if you were to ingest marijuana it would be extremely safe. You cant even OD and die on it like you can with alcohol. Also abortions effects go far beyond the end user also, many times more than smoking mj. When you take a person out of the system that would have normally have been alive you are changing the history of man kind in a drastic way.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Far from it, the impacts of the drug business go far beyond the physical impact of the end user
Well, alcohol seems to be more harmful than marijuana, if you were to ingest marijuana it would be extremely safe. You cant even OD and die on it like you can with alcohol. Also abortions effects go far beyond the end user also, many times more than smoking mj. When you take a person out of the system that would have normally have been alive you are changing the history of man kind in a drastic way.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
Well, alcohol seems to be more harmful than marijuana,
Alcohol is a drug.
Captain See Sharp wrote:
if you were to ingest marijuana it would be extremely safe
Im my experiance, with a bicycle and the giggles it can cause a couple of bruises The drug industry has a huge impact on society, from the petty criminals who pinch old ladies hand bags to pay for the next hit, the economic effects of massive untaxed trade to the cost on society of the mental repercussions of drug use, particually pot This[^] is an interesting read History shows that baning medical abortion leads to an increase in illegal amature abortion which is far more dangerous, both for the individual and society as a whole
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
Well, alcohol seems to be more harmful than marijuana,
Alcohol is a drug.
Captain See Sharp wrote:
if you were to ingest marijuana it would be extremely safe
Im my experiance, with a bicycle and the giggles it can cause a couple of bruises The drug industry has a huge impact on society, from the petty criminals who pinch old ladies hand bags to pay for the next hit, the economic effects of massive untaxed trade to the cost on society of the mental repercussions of drug use, particually pot This[^] is an interesting read History shows that baning medical abortion leads to an increase in illegal amature abortion which is far more dangerous, both for the individual and society as a whole
Josh Gray wrote:
History shows that baning medical abortion leads to an increase in illegal amature abortion which is far more dangerous, both for the individual and society as a whole
The same is true with drugs. That link you provided me is extremely biased.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Josh Gray wrote:
History shows that baning medical abortion leads to an increase in illegal amature abortion which is far more dangerous, both for the individual and society as a whole
The same is true with drugs. That link you provided me is extremely biased.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
That link you provided me is extremely biased
Because it doesnt agree with you? If you bothered to read a bit of it you'd realise its largely comments from readers of that site so its unlikely they are all biased in the same direction. Smoke all you want son, is their manditory detention for possesion of pot in your state?
-
Where the hell in the Bill of Rights does it say you are allowed to have an abortion? I keep hearing that it is your constitutional right but I would like to know what amendment "allows" it? :rolleyes: If it is really a women's constitutional right to have an abortion then why isn't it my constitutional right to smoke marijuana?
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Come on, you can look this up on wikipedia same as the rest of us -- here's your teaser. "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." For super-citizen extra credit, go and read the majority and dissenting opinions. You'd actually be one of the rare, rare people who actually know what they are talking about with regards to that debate. I can't imagine that the wacky baccy has much to do with privacy issues, so I doubt very much it would apply. That said, as far as I'm concerned, marijuana is clearly not particularly harmful. If you're not already, move to one of the numerous states were possesion has been decriminalized and live your life, if that's what interests you. I know you're shocked, *SHOCKED* to hear this, but Berkeley and San Francisco both have that policy in place (implemented at a local level actually - both have local ordinances saying that basically you cannot be arrested only for marijuana under any circumstances. The berkeley city website actually has a bit saying that peaceful people growing weed in their houses who are then robbed should feel comfortable calling upon the police to investigate!). Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the places where marijuana policy is the most liberal tend are already the places in which I'd like to live -- bay area, california generally, boston area, new york, seattle, oregon maybe. I don't imagine any of those places as the sort where you'd really have to be concerned on a day to day level with normal usage.
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
If it is really a women's constitutional right to have an abortion then why isn't it my constitutional right to smoke marijuana?
'cause mary jane don't help the good ol' boys keep up their appearances... (that was a rhetorical question, right?)
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Megadeth has a song called Mary Jane. They denied it was about dope. This is 18 years ago. Today is the first time I've seen anyone use that term to mean marijuana.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Come on, you can look this up on wikipedia same as the rest of us -- here's your teaser. "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." For super-citizen extra credit, go and read the majority and dissenting opinions. You'd actually be one of the rare, rare people who actually know what they are talking about with regards to that debate. I can't imagine that the wacky baccy has much to do with privacy issues, so I doubt very much it would apply. That said, as far as I'm concerned, marijuana is clearly not particularly harmful. If you're not already, move to one of the numerous states were possesion has been decriminalized and live your life, if that's what interests you. I know you're shocked, *SHOCKED* to hear this, but Berkeley and San Francisco both have that policy in place (implemented at a local level actually - both have local ordinances saying that basically you cannot be arrested only for marijuana under any circumstances. The berkeley city website actually has a bit saying that peaceful people growing weed in their houses who are then robbed should feel comfortable calling upon the police to investigate!). Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the places where marijuana policy is the most liberal tend are already the places in which I'd like to live -- bay area, california generally, boston area, new york, seattle, oregon maybe. I don't imagine any of those places as the sort where you'd really have to be concerned on a day to day level with normal usage.
Nathan Addy wrote:
Come on, you can look this up on wikipedia same as the rest of us -- here's your teaser. "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
If you actually read the 14thamendment, you'll see that it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever and is intentionally misinterpreted to suit the whims of the left. However, when applied as it was in Roe v. Wade, it actually means that states are stripped of their ability to legislate anything. It's an incorrect and anarchical interpretation. The pertinent portion cited by Roe v. Wade is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The first part is viewed as a broad protection of personal liberties (when "liberty" here actually means access to self-government). It is intentionally taken out of context to mean that the state cannot legislate anything that pertains to a citizen (which is basically anything at all). However, this section is coupled with the words "due process of law" (the ignored part), which shows that the amendment pertains only to equal protection and not anarchy. States are permitted under this amendment and the 10th to legislate things like abortion restrictions, so long as they are applied equally (e.g. abortion can't be illegal only for white women). Ironically, slavery was not as egregious an assault on equal protection as abortion, but a corrupt interpretation of the equal protections clause is cited to justify it.
-
Megadeth has a song called Mary Jane. They denied it was about dope. This is 18 years ago. Today is the first time I've seen anyone use that term to mean marijuana.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
The term goes back at least to the 60s, possibly farther.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Megadeth has a song called Mary Jane. They denied it was about dope. This is 18 years ago. Today is the first time I've seen anyone use that term to mean marijuana.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
Come on, you can look this up on wikipedia same as the rest of us -- here's your teaser. "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
If you actually read the 14thamendment, you'll see that it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever and is intentionally misinterpreted to suit the whims of the left. However, when applied as it was in Roe v. Wade, it actually means that states are stripped of their ability to legislate anything. It's an incorrect and anarchical interpretation. The pertinent portion cited by Roe v. Wade is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The first part is viewed as a broad protection of personal liberties (when "liberty" here actually means access to self-government). It is intentionally taken out of context to mean that the state cannot legislate anything that pertains to a citizen (which is basically anything at all). However, this section is coupled with the words "due process of law" (the ignored part), which shows that the amendment pertains only to equal protection and not anarchy. States are permitted under this amendment and the 10th to legislate things like abortion restrictions, so long as they are applied equally (e.g. abortion can't be illegal only for white women). Ironically, slavery was not as egregious an assault on equal protection as abortion, but a corrupt interpretation of the equal protections clause is cited to justify it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
(when "liberty" here actually means access to self-government)
Where is the reference to that definition of "liberty"? Since your entire post is based on that I would think it might be important to establish that fact.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Where is the reference to that definition of "liberty"? Since your entire post is based on that I would think it might be important to establish that fact.
In the Declaration of Independence. It's also made clear in the 10th amendment and the second part of section 1 of the 14th amendment that states have the legislative right to pass whichever laws they want insomuch as they are applied equally. In fact the 14th amendment specifically states that individuals can be deprived of life, liberty or property with due process of law. Your definition of liberty, which states that government cannot pass laws regarding personally liberties, would require the underlined part to be excluded. The fact that it isn't demonstrates the fact that government is capable of doing this as long as it's in accordance with democratically agreed-upon laws and that those laws are applied equally (e.g. you can't say that only black women can get abortions).
-
led mike wrote:
Where is the reference to that definition of "liberty"? Since your entire post is based on that I would think it might be important to establish that fact.
In the Declaration of Independence. It's also made clear in the 10th amendment and the second part of section 1 of the 14th amendment that states have the legislative right to pass whichever laws they want insomuch as they are applied equally. In fact the 14th amendment specifically states that individuals can be deprived of life, liberty or property with due process of law. Your definition of liberty, which states that government cannot pass laws regarding personally liberties, would require the underlined part to be excluded. The fact that it isn't demonstrates the fact that government is capable of doing this as long as it's in accordance with democratically agreed-upon laws and that those laws are applied equally (e.g. you can't say that only black women can get abortions).
Red Stateler wrote:
with due process of law
Since scores of legal experts down through the years have debated the interpretation without successful conclusion it seems unlikely that adding the (D)espeir interpretation to the debate will result in a sudden consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
with due process of law
Since scores of legal experts down through the years have debated the interpretation without successful conclusion it seems unlikely that adding the (D)espeir interpretation to the debate will result in a sudden consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?
led mike
led mike wrote:
Since scores of legal experts down through the years have debated the interpretation without successful conclusion it seems unlikely that adding the (D)espeir interpretation to the debate will result in a sudden consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
-
led mike wrote:
Since scores of legal experts down through the years have debated the interpretation without successful conclusion it seems unlikely that adding the (D)espeir interpretation to the debate will result in a sudden consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
Red Stateler wrote:
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
You are creeping me out again. :sigh:
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
You are creeping me out again. :sigh:
led mike
led mike wrote:
You are creeping me out again.
I understand. My brilliance is often intimidating.