fauxlaw

Whose brilliant conclusion is that? I don't see that as the impediment of the most sentient being on Earth. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I'm talking about law of nature along with those we develop to create society and civilization. one of those laws being, "Shyte happens." What are you going to do about it? We're supposed to think about this stuff before we engage so fully in congress with other people; in particular, strangers. Who knows where they and their gonads have been, yeah? Sometimes, we can;t think about it in time in the case of rape. But we do the best we can. or should. There is no excuse for anything else. 

Case in point: You encounter a pool at the base of a 100-foot cliff. Oh, look, that would be a kick to jump into. Think it might be wise to confirm, at least, that it's deeper than two feet? Hell, no! let's go.  Well, I say, go ahead; you first.

As for this site, you'll note that even in debate [there is also a forum], that proof may come just by your own perspective'a argument, without evidence. Says so on every page of round entry of debate. Look I lobbied for clarifying that sourcing [the evidence, you know] should be required, not optional. I lost that lobbying. It's optional, my friend, and that's just the debate side. The forum side? open season, my friend. It's an opinion page.

Back to abortion? Let's recall I'm not the one who took us to killers in neighborhoods, yeah?

Guys, the answer to lunatic's question was answered on the affected former member's profile before lunatic asked, and it needs no further elaboration. "We" [members of DArt] did not  ban the person, and, as a result none but Mods have the key to effect release.

I appeal to David to close this string and let us all move on.

@RM

So, let's wipe history off the map, along with Israel, while were at it. Shades of being so hateful of Trump, his memory is eradicated by cancel culture, yeah? There never was a Trump. There was Oba'a, and Joe was so sleepy, he couldn't move to the WH for the following four years because he was hiding from Covid in his basement. Sure, makes perfect sense to an outside observer, wouldn't it?

@RM.

No, not correct. I've already explained this. Whether or not you accept the purchase of the land by David as still in force today, you certainly accept the occupation of Canaan when Israelites, and probably not all of them, migrated to Egypt during the famine around 1800 BCEm and Ishmaelite [Arab ancestors]. You may or may not accept the re-occupation 400 years later by the Israelites when they returned from Egypt [~1400 BCE]. David's purchase was a few generations later. When the Israelites were taken away in bondage to Babylon in 600 BCR, you probably accept the re- occupation by Ishmaelites, again. Same in the Crusades, concluding 13th century CE, occupying the land against Israelites and Europeans. Vut again, you do not accept the occupation by Jews, specifically, in 1967. 

So, how does you logic support occupation by Arabs, or their ancestors, but not Jews, nor their ancestors.

Moral, perhaps, and morals vary between people, obviously, but just [as in. legal], no. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act [2004] calls the death of a fetus, at any stage of development, murder  when the mother is killed. Murder, because, that is the distinction of killing a person with intention, thus considering the fetus a person. Sorry, but that is the law. Since I am not held to account for your morality, and your mortality ends when in conflict to law, you lose.

You're talking in circles. Who says a neighborhood murderer intends to kill me? On the other hand, who says gender does not have the intent of procreation. Some individual items of our physiology, such as the appendix, may not have known purpose, but it is not given that it therefore had no purpose, or still might, but that given cannot be said for an entire system, such as reproduction. Therefore, it does not hold that purpose does not have intent simply because you cannot specify an intender. I can: God. You have a hard time convincing me that intender doesn't, and all I need to to prove it to myself.

@RM

I acknowledge that perspective, but that perspective acknowledges the complete eradication [therefore, occupation] of Israel. So, again, others may occupy, but Israel cannot? There's a goose and gander that must come to terms when the terms are: occupation is legitimate.

And you still fail to acknowledge the original purchase of the land 3,400 years ago. Not a word. Is it ignorable?

Oh, is it not? Tell me, how many women of history have inserted the ova into a man? How many men have conceived and born children from their body? Not a given? Time for remedial biology, anatomy, genetics, and the reproductive system of Homo sapiens. There's even a purpose to being skeptical, but this ain't it.

?  too easy. so easy, it missed the mark.

How often is it generally known that a killer resides in the neighborhood? Would I move into such a neighborhood, assuming it was well known? I can live anywhere; meaning multiple choices since my business is conducted virtually entirely online. Anywhere I can establish wifi. So, personally, your analogy has no bars. So, no, I do not consent.

Did I say the gamete is a person? No. I did not even infer that because I know the gamete is just half of the DNA molecule, but it is a living organism that can only be a person, eventually. Therefore, no sterilization is not murder. In fact, the act of sterilization dos not end the life of gametes in either sex. So, where is my backpeddlimg? Seems it's yours by making assumptions of what I am saying. 

Don't be absurd. Men are not biologically structured for that. As I said; gender has purpose, and the idea that one sex can decide in the head to be another sex doesn't change the biology of the matter. A man deciding to remove his penis a cut a slit does not make him a woman. The biology does not follow the surgery, hormone treatment, or not.

Poor analogy. Unless that murderer crosses my threshold into my personal space, the murder is unlikely to happen, so my unwitting move into the neighborhood in no way signals my consent. Consent actually has legal standards: capacity of decision, and consent documentation. Both imply that I have prior knowledge that a murderer, in fact, resides in the neighborhood. Your analogy does not apply because, whether a person can be murdered, or not, [or raped] there must be knowledge of the possibility, and what that means, prior to offering consent, and the refusal of consent must at least verbalized, but is legally acceptable by physical resistance.

@RM

in. the first place, when?

Well, it is evident from RM's #1 on which side of the conflict RM chooses to stand. The language by adjectives, expresses it all, clearly enough, and overwhelms any claim that has been or might be claimed that RM straddles the issue. I will add for the record that only one side of the issue has ever claimed the utter annihilation of the other. I think that speaks for itself. 

Personally, I challenge why Hamas, openly and secretly supported by several nations surrounding Israel, does not encourage their support to simply offer land to Palestinians for a homeland. 

I also wonder why no one of RM's persuasion will answer why it is legitimate for Palestinians to occupy by force the West Bank, when, clearly, Israel occupied it by the same means in 1967, and no one, to date, has been able to wrest it from them. If occupation is a legitimate means to secure a piece of land by war [it was a defensive war by Israel, you will recall], then why is Israel's occupation maligned, and the Arab occupation previously is considered legitimate? If occupation is legit, then why isn't the last to occupy granted the right to maintain it? Y'all have an argument you can't win.

Not to mention my argument of purchase of the West Bank, and the temple mount, some 3400 years ago by David from Araunah, and has not since been sold.

Tell me when the gamete is not alive? In the female, her gametes [in her case, ova] develop when she, herself, is a fetus, developing the whole number of ova [gametes] she will ever have in her lifetime, and, thus, are always alive and with purpose before she is ever born. So, yes, she is biologically of consent to conceive unless she chooses to avoid coitus, or is raped, or by 100% confidence, can depend on artificial contraceptives, the which confidence level presently does not exist but by one means: sterilization.

@ Stephen

Not likely to happen. Gender has purpose, and that one is not mine. Accusation fail.

That may be the best justification for minimum wage I've ever heard; a concept I oppose but for workers just entering the working world with no experience or marketable skills; therefore, for youth. It makes no sense that minimum wage ought to support a family. The Fair Labor Act of 1938, on which min wage is based, never said it was for more than a single, unskilled worker. That definition has not changed in the nearly 100 years since.

Are you speaking of appreciation of others' work, or our own endeavors, or both?

You have raised this point before, many times; that every word of the Bible is direct word from Christ/Hebrew God Yahweh.

What make you, then of Paul's writing in I Corinthians 15: the entire chapter, and its context relative to v 29, speaking of baptism for the dead? In context, many describe that the wording is difficult to described, simply because Christian theologians do not understand the term; therefore, it's wording is vague. But if all scripture is "the direct word from Christ," them we'd best conclude Christ knows what Paul is talking about, and we'd best understand it in context that there are many who will never know of Christ in their mortal lifetime. Are they to be ignored and written out of the Book of Life?

No, this has naught to do with a flat earth. So?

As you are fond of saying: Begin.

Yes, extenuating circumstances, such as a profile, which is precisely why it is offered, and which, for the record, I note you do not provide. What are you hiding? Aty least I tell you up front about my writing, which activity the forum is, virtually in total. Caveat lector.

What, you've never heard of a snap quiz? I am supposed to advise in advance that a post has alternate motive? What's the use of advance notice if I want to achieve exactly what I have: honest response based on what is written, even if a ruse. This stuff is supposed to challenge comfort zones.

That only persons, themselves, by self-recognition of the limit of their rights [wherein those rights do not invade the rights of others, such as yelling fire in a crowd, where no fire exists, thus causing potential injury to others, ought to be a self-regulated issue and not a matter of law. As James Madison once said, if men were angels, they would not need government. That is, they would inherently know where their individual rights end, and act accordingly. That they do not, thus, we need government.

Making it more difficult to buy guns only means that law-abiding citizens, by far the majority of us, are penalized for the actions of a minority. What makes that a proper course? Law-breakers will obtain guns regardless of regulations, just as they do, now.

I think I understand what you mean. You're saying a fetus, being inside the mother, is violating the rights of the mother? But she has participated in 50% of its creating, whether she wanted to or not, so, if you imply that the fetus is usurping the mother's right, I'll argue that the mother has given implied consent simply b y virtue of her choice to have sex, excepting in cases of rape, and some incest [where her consent to having sex was not given]. By her consent, there is no violation of her rights. And, as already noted, the incident of rape or incest is very low compared to consent. Therefore, your argument is overwhelmingly false.

Congratulations on the landing of Zhurong rover on Mars!

Most regulation, what you want, but I am for limited regulation, is an attempt to regulate human behavior. How successful is that? Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens. According to Pew Research in 2019, using data from 2017, roughly 40% percent of American citizens own guns; many own multiple guns. That's about 1323M Americans. In 2017, there were just under 40,000 killings by guns. However, a sticking point most do not dig deep enough in the survey to find is that 60% of that 40,000 are death by gun by suicide, which is not murder of another individual, and there is never a murder charge against a suicide, so your actual murders are much less that the 40,000. Yes, killing by a gun leads all weapons of choice, but, again, how successful is legislation attempting to control human behavior? Well, considering the population, 330M of us in the US, with 16,000 actual murders [not including suicides] that's a percentage of 0.12% of us. We kill more people on our roads and highways. Shall we regulate motor vehicles out of existence? Or, if we regulate guns out of existence, because, as you claim, they may have outlived their constitutional use, shall we then ban spoons, because they can kill, too? So can thumbs. Let's ban those, hoping that one or another ban will be 100% behaviorally effective.

You think I'm kidding. Nope.

By Timid's own post #1, the subject does not include Christianity, so why push the point? Further, Timid admits to being non-theist, a point you manage to completely ignore. Timid has a perfect right to that position, and I don't personally believe Timid is going to hell for that, in spite of the declaration. Romans clearly offers us a variety of heavenly glories, and not one of them includes hell, so there is apparently a differing set of kingdoms in heaven for varying grades of righteousness in people, outside of hell. We're even told in Romans that hell is reserved for those who deny the the testimony of the Holy Ghost, the only unpardonable sin, which does not even include murder. 

But, none of this is relevant, because the thread does not include Christianity in the first place. 

You do understand the difference between fact and fiction, yeah? I said the ask was fiction. You assumed it was real. And, now, still do. That's on you. I don't ned to justify fiction. That's part of the suspension of disbelief, and that's on you, too.

My post #39 makes no mention of "internal user." I don't even know what you mean by the term, as I asked before. Your post #43 is the first mention of it. Admit it, then tell me what is meant by it. Do you not know how to do a search for a specific string of words in online text? If you're using a Windows-based machine, I don't have a clue, because you don't have a keyboard command key. Try your <ALT> key. I was broken on the pane of windows years ago; I really have no idea how y'all compensate for lack of excellence. My old '84 Macintosh still functions just fine, if slow compared to now.

By the numbers, according to Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

about 132M people own at least one gun, and, in 2017, the last year of data collection by Pew, about 40,000 people in US were killed by a gun. That's 0.03%; not a big number, even though it is the leading cause of death by a weapon. Further, of those 40,000, again according to Pew, 60% of those killed [24,000] were killed by their own hand; suicides.

Same to you as above, #25. You think you know me, but get sucked into a narrative.

@RM

What you’re missing; all three of you, is a careful read of my profile. I write historic fiction as one profession. Some of the reviews by various people [to which you don’t have easy access, I’ll admit, but, you should know the general genre, and what it implies] indicate that they find it difficult to identify where the history ends and fiction begins, which is exactly the intent. You supply suspension of disbelief, as is necessary for reading fiction, and it is either all fiction, or all history.
 
Therefore, in this thread, my post #1 is part history, part fiction. The MADA mask was real, worn by a woman; a separate woman from my real experience wearing my MAGA hat, along with the story up to, but not including the point of my question. But the ask was completely ignored by you, particularly by RM; y’all skip directly to assuming I actually committed assault [doesn’t take much, by law; a simple touch might suffice]. No, actually, I did’t even ask, let alone act, because y’all forget: indoors, social distancing is still the suggestion; I wasn’t within 3 meters of her, let alone within arm’s reach. I neither said anything, nor did anything. Yet, y’all assume my aggression. Shame on you. This was the point of the entire exercise; to see who would assume I am the aggressor, and you’re all of that assumption. You’re too quick to commit the same aggression of which you accuse me.
 
Thus, my point all along. Hatred of Trump has affected thinking across the board. He’s gone. Relax, and take a breath. Take two. Take as many as you need, and then take what you’ve been giving, freely and frequently over the past four years. Isn’t turn-about fair play? Except I don’t hate Joe Biden; I pity the poor man; his wife should have told him the same thing Oba’a told him: “You don’t have to do this.” Biden should have listened. So should you.

@RM

All three of you don't get it. When one's extension of rights goes beyond their reach, their assumption of rights is wrong. "Another woman" means not the same woman. And why would a woman wearing a hijab also be wearing a mask? Who does she think she is? Joe Biden?  Dr. Fauci?

But there's something more you're all missing. By and by... you may get it, yet.

@RM

Buttons pushed much? How easy was that? Thanks for falling for it.

I wonder why the guy has me blocked, and yet reacts so. Hmmmm? Starved for attention?

My question was first, and it has yet to be answered:

attached and reliant - temporarily. kind of like the sex that begins the whole thing. Yeah, God's tech.

You missed the same lesson as Didicit. And that there was "another indignant woman."

Did you miss the lesson: your rights end at your nose?

As is typical, some people assume things don't actually happen, and you don't know to whom they happen. I raise the point because, though a conservative, a Trump voter, and owner of a red MAGA hat, I live  near a very liberal, small mountain town in which, on the street near the grocery store I mentioned, a couple of years ago, my hat was summarily removed, by assault, by another indignant woman. Assume all you like; you know what is made by such an attitude.

And further, says nothing when Biden removes his mask inside the Carter home, a pair of nonagenarians, nor when she forces a salon to open for her do when the salon is supposed to be shutdown for the same health crisis. I think that's called a hypocrite. The same Pelostomy, early in the crisis, invited people to come to SFO's Chinatown... she was maskless.

Which post of mine? I just did a command-f search for "internal user" in this entire string. Doesn't exist at all until your post #43,  so, you tell me.

What, pray tell, is an internal user; possessive, natural, or whatever?

I went to the grocery store tonight, and what do you think I saw? Well, I've joked before about everything we respect ultimately ends up being public trash, like cigarette butts and masks in gutters. Well, a woman was wearing a blue mask with MADA emblazoned on it in white letters. I guessed, since she was also wearing a Biden tee shirt, that it was an acronym for Make America Democrat Again. I asked; she said yes. Then I asked her if I could knock it off her face. She was offended. She didn't think that was funny at all.

Amazing, isn't it, that some people can dish it out, but can't take it. 

Like dishing on Trump for 4 years, but mention Rollover Joe, and the same dishers can't taker it. You know who your are.

Israel occupied land in a war they did not start and  to which they retaliated in opposing force and managed to defeat their attackers on all sides, in six days. Decisive victory that overwhelmed 1.4k years of bickering back and forth. So, suddenly their occupation carried less legitimacy than the Arabs? Tell me why. Not to mention a purchase of land much older than that 1.4k years. Tell me why a purchase, with lack of subsequent sale, carries less legitimacy.

Meanwhile, you will notice that the Arab world is not falling over themselves to give land to Palestine to establish sovereignty. Why not? Aren't they brothers in arms? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Or isn't a sovereign nation of Palestine the real Arab intent?

By reference to oromagi's post #3, my paternal great great grandfather and great grandfather [father and son] were  personal friends to Joseph Smith, and my paternal grandmother, who was daughter of Brigham's namesake son, was Brigham Young's last surviving grandchild, so I am closer to that personal history than many. I tend to agree with Poly's description. The message had best take precedent over the human [differing from the divine entity] counterpart.

The matter is confused even further trying to describe the Trinity as a single God representing three different forms, as if a candy bar of chocolate, nougat, and nuts. I ascribe to three separate and distinct beings having a completely unified purpose: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Someone here mentions "half-assed" often enough to suggest the presence of a mirror in a past condition. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Show me the gun that killed a person entirely on its own, without ever being handled by a person. I have never seen, and never will see the headline, "Gun breaks in and

I can tell you join many who believe in anthropomorphized guns, but that is a fantasy.

You do realize, yeah, that your semantics claim superiority of mine. Pardon if I disagree. 

The physical evidence of settlements are based upon the age-old belief that occupation of land, and declaration of sovereignty, is policy. Most of you accept that action on policy by Arabs. IS Israel exempted by some resolution of which  I am unaware?

A case in OR, decided by a federal judge, determined that schools, businesses, cannot prohibit people physically expressing [known as cis-gender] one sex, but who think they are another sex, from entering the locker rooms and showers of the sex they think they are.
 
Thus demonstrates the fallacy of thought over physical evidence. While those who make such decisions of gender-thinking also believe their rights are being offended if prevented from acting on their thinking, they ignore that the rights of people who know what sex they are by birth are being violated. Violated by thinking of others. 
 
Does that make sense to anybody? Obviously, it does. It says that the 4.5% of gender-benders in the U.S. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/
think their minority position takes precedent over the majority 95.5% whose knowledge of physical evidence demonstrates their knowledge of their gender. People can think and believe anything they want. But when that thinking violates others’ rights, that’s usurpation of rights. We have ten constitutional rights that set that latter precedent. Think as you wish, but keep it in your thoughts, or within a like-minded group, but, don't force it on the knowledge of others, because, otherwise, your resulting actions are violating those others’ rights.

No, someone external to the body of another cannot usurp the use of the first person's body. But a fetal pregnancy is not  possessive use of the woman's body by external means other than by coitus. Further, the sexual act which produced the fetus is entirely the product of two gametes from the contributing father and mother. The resulting zygote is entirely a matter of natural biology, and not the invention, nor intention, and, therefore, not the possessive greed of the zygote for its own purposes.

Whether you accept the design, or not, the fact is, unchangeable by your opinion, the female of the human species is naturally endowed with child-bearing ability. She may choose to avoid engaging it. But don't expect that engaging the process has within it the natural ability to obstruct the process of procreation, other than by intentional, permanent means, which is, as well, a matter of choice.

By what Israeli policy is wiping put Palestine evident? Palestine can be somewhere else. Palestine is not recognized by the UN as a sovereign nation of a particular locale. Israewl is so recognized. And, nice job of completely ignoring the Israeli occupation of the West Bank by a defensive war in 1967. Since the Arab world occupied the temple mount 1400 years ago, what's the difference? As I said, possession of the land is had both biblically, which you discount, and by occupation, which you accept only by one side.

That I made up a scenario makes no implication whether Biden will do so, or not. It is my opinion, to which I have right to express. period. Go complain to someone who doesn't understand the concept of personal opinion.

I am aware of the basics of genetics. That does not change the fact that the fetus is a different person from either parent, and that, therefore, the fetus is not part of the woman's body, but is merely contained therein, as in a closed-end cavity, open on one side, just as you would hold a golf ball in your clenched fist.