Political Crossfire Forums

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

Snarf wrote: God is the King of Abortions. 50% of conceptions go right down the toilet, and 10% more are aborted later on. That's a lot of Christian babies God throws away, about 5 million a year just in the U.S. alone, per year...

God is the King all right but atheist and secular man is the Devil's abortionist.

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

sgtshortness wrote: joe christian wrote:
You discriminate against procreative and reproductive marriages in favor of non-reproductive homosexist and feminist marriages.

Pro-choicers don't say "I'm sorry but your marriage is nto allowed to have a baby." They give them the choice.
You deny and deprive Judeo-Christian and Islamic men of the right to raise large families if you give their wives the wicked secular right to kill their babies at will. The fact of the matter is that atheist, feminist and pro-choice secularists shouldn't be telling Judeo-Christians and Muslims how to arrange their marriages. As long as you do, Judeo-Christians and Muslims will oppose homosexist and feminist marriages.

Quote: So the man should have more rights than the woman in the marriage concerning abortions?
In traditional Judeo-Christian and Islamic marriages, the husband is the head of the household and is not dominated by the secular ideology of feminist and homosexist pro-choicers in government.

Quote: I give the woman the right because it is the lesser of two evils.
Give your wife and children whatever rights you like but don't impose your atheistic and secular ideology on Judeo-Christian and Islamic men.

Quote: A man should not have complete control over the woman.
Neither should atheists, feminists, homosexists and secularist have complete control over Judeo-Christian and Islamic marriages when it comes to equal procreative and reproductive rights.

Quote: Unless you can suggest an alternative and/or compromise, I'm sticking with that.
Let people contractually consent to whatever kind of marriages they want.

Then you can have your homosexist and feminist marriages, Roman Catholics can have RC marriages, Jews can have Jewish marriages and Muslims can have Islamic marriages. Until religious marriages are recognized and legitimized by the state, we will oppose your homosexist and feminist marriages to the death.

Quote: Biking isn't a Judeo-Christian religious practice.
Any healthy physical and mental exercise is a sound Judeo-Christian religious practice.

Quote: I promote the females right, not the abortionists in this case.
You promote the supremacy of women's reproductive rights in marriage over men's. You are thus a feminist supremacist.

Quote: What's a feminist marriage right?
A feminist marriage is one in which the woman claims secular and superior reproductive rights over her husband.

Gay rights don't exist any more than gay marriages do. All rights and marriages are human affairs.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Prole wrote: Which section of the US constitution would make forcing people to donate blood illegal? Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Quote: And thanks for the gold star. You're welcome.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

None of these measures specfically ban or allow what would essentially be a blood-tax, steen. I can see a lot of reasons why a blood-tax is unlikely to come into effect, but being constitutionally illegal is not one of them.

Amendment IV is concerned only with police investigation regarding criminals. A tax and a police seizure are different, and a warrant is not required to tax anyone.

V is similar; it is concerned with punishment, whereas a blood tax is not a punishment, but a tax.

A blood tax would not be involuntary servitude any more than any other tax, so XIII is moot.

Likewise, no one is being any more deprived of life, liberty or property any more with a blood tax than any other tax.

joe christian wrote: Gay rights don't exist any more than gay marriages do. All rights and marriages are human affairs.
So gays aren't human now?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Prole wrote: None of these measures specfically ban or allow what would essentially be a blood-tax, steen. I can see a lot of reasons why a blood-tax is unlikely to come into effect, but being constitutionally illegal is not one of them. The first one certainly does:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, "

Your right to be secure in your person against unreasonable seizures shall not be violated. It is quite clear right there. And being forced to give your bodily resources against your will is an unreasonable seizure. Blood, kidneys, bone marrow, the whole deal. We can't even take this from corpses without family permission and express willingness from the person before death.

Quote: Amendment IV is concerned only with police investigation regarding criminals. A tax and a police seizure are different, and a warrant is not required to tax anyone. it is also a declaration that you have the right to control your own body.

Quote: V is similar; it is concerned with punishment, whereas a blood tax is not a punishment, but a tax. Ah, but you missed the last part, which is NOT about criminal activity:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

Quote: A blood tax would not be involuntary servitude any more than any other tax, so XIII is moot. it is per the previous amendments.

Quote: Likewise, no one is being any more deprived of life, liberty or property any more with a blood tax than any other tax. Actually, yes they are. If you are forced to give blood, you are indeed depriived of liberty. You are denied the right to control your own body and be sucure in your own person. You are enslaved (And there is, BTW, an amendment outlawing slavery as well :lol: )

sgtshortness · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 82

Thanks for the last post, joe, it cleared things up a lot.

So what you're saying is that in a mutually consented to Judeo-Christian marriage, the man>woman.

Sure, you have that religious right in a mutually consented to Judeo-Christian marriage. I agree fully with you.

But if the woman gets the abortion anyways, how mutually consented is that?

Let's say two people get married and have a mutually consented Judeo-Christian marriage. If the marriage is trully mutually consented to, the woman won't get an abortion unless her husband gives permission, correct?

So in mutually consented marriages, the woman won't get abortions w/o the father have given permission. If the woman gets an abortion anyways, it's not really mutally consented.

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5288

joe christian wrote: Snarf wrote: God is the King of Abortions. 50% of conceptions go right down the toilet, and 10% more are aborted later on. That's a lot of Christian babies God throws away, about 5 million a year just in the U.S. alone, per year...

God is the King all right but atheist and secular man is the Devil's abortionist.
The Devil would never support abortion. Like Mother Theresa, He wants as many souls as can be created...

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

No, I still do not believe that a blood-tax would be unconstitutional, steen.

"Unreasonable" is all subjective; there are some who say that many of the taxes we have today are unreasonable. I do not find a blood-tax to be unreasonable.

Again taxes do providely (subjectively) "just" compensation; we get a government who can (in theory) provide services for and protect us.

Furthermore, paying a blood-tax is not slavery, but a tax, any more than paying a part of your salary to the government means you are part government slave. They are taxing a part of your body, not the entire thing. You are not losing your autonomy any more than you are when being forced to pay any other tax.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Prole wrote: No, I still do not believe that a blood-tax would be unconstitutional, steen. So we have to dive into US Supreme COurt cases on this subject. Hmm.... that will take a bit of time.

Quote: "Unreasonable" is all subjective; there are some who say that many of the taxes we have today are unreasonable. I do not find a blood-tax to be unreasonable. How about a kidney tax?

Quote: Again taxes do providely (subjectively) "just" compensation; we get a government who can (in theory) provide services for and protect us. Where the State then owns our bodily resources? You claim that being constitutional?

Quote: Furthermore, paying a blood-tax is not slavery, but a tax, any more than paying a part of your salary to the government means you are part government slave. yes, it does, as you now are being forced to give your bodily resources. That's no different than the Government forcing you to go pick cotton against your will.

Quote: They are taxing a part of your body, not the entire thing. You are not losing your autonomy any more than you are when being forced to pay any other tax. Sure you are. Your bodily autonomy allows you to tell people to bugger off if they want any bodily resource from you.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

steen wrote: How about a kidney tax?
Well, donating a kidney is a lot different than donating, say, a pint of blood annualy. Giving blood, assuming you are not anemic or underweight or something else that would medically disqualify even people from legally volunteering to give blood, affects people for two days at the most. It really is not much different than jury duty.

Giving a kidney affects you for life. I admit that I am extremely ignorant about the affects of a kidney donation, or if it is comparable to the medical effects of pregnancy rather than abortion, or if an "equal" comparison is even possible. I honestly don't have any opinion about kidney tax more than making late term abortion illegal; both would seriously affect people's lives, whereas a blood tax is a pretty minimal impact.

Regarding people being "enslaved" with a body tax, it is not that individuals own them in the sense that they control EVERYTHING they do, but only certain things. The government can make any law it pleases as long as it applies to everyone equally until they commit a crime, including removing bodily autonomy and legally obligating people to do certain labor; conscription and jury duty are not unconstitutional, and neither would a blood tax be.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Prole wrote: steen wrote: How about a kidney tax?
Well, donating a kidney is a lot different than donating, say, a pint of blood annualy. Giving blood, assuming you are not anemic or underweight or something else that would medically disqualify even people from legally volunteering to give blood, affects people for two days at the most. It really is not much different than jury duty. And donating your spare kidney is also a procedure of a few days, with minimal discomfort and safer than giving birth (A notable point relating to denying a woman an abortion).

Quote: Giving a kidney affects you for life. Not really. Unless you are one of the 10,000 people suffering kidney failure, it will never ever affect you.

Quote: I admit that I am extremely ignorant about the affects of a kidney donation, or if it is comparable to the medical effects of pregnancy rather than abortion, or if an "equal" comparison is even possible. I honestly don't have any opinion about kidney tax more than making late term abortion illegal; both would seriously affect people's lives, whereas a blood tax is a pretty minimal impact. But the "pregnancy tax" you seek to push on women most certainly has major impact. health-wise, career wise, financially etc.

Quote: Regarding people being "enslaved" with a body tax, it is not that individuals own them in the sense that they control EVERYTHING they do, but only certain things. The government can make any law it pleases as long as it applies to everyone equally until they commit a crime, including removing bodily autonomy and legally obligating people to do certain labor; conscription and jury duty are not unconstitutional, and neither would a blood tax be. But forced pregnancy would only apply to women. How do you make that work?

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

Prole wrote: joe christian wrote: Gay rights don't exist any more than gay marriages do. All rights and marriages are human affairs.
So gays aren't human now?
What are "gays?" If you are referring to feminists and sexists, they have the same human rights everyone else in the US has.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

As I said, I'm pretty ignorant about the effects of donating a kidney; if it's as mild as you say it is, then no, I wouldn't have any problem with it at all.

And where have I EVER said that I oppose abortion's legality?

steen wrote: But forced pregnancy would only apply to women. How do you make that work?
No, it only applies to people who become pregnant; I would hold this view whether women, men, or both could become pregnant. It just so happens that this is a pretty key biological difference between sexes, not one that anyone created in an attempt to discriminate.

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

sgtshortness wrote: Thanks for the last post, joe, it cleared things up a lot.

So what you're saying is that in a mutually consented to Judeo-Christian marriage, the man>woman.

Sure, you have that religious right in a mutually consented to Judeo-Christian marriage. I agree fully with you.

But if the woman gets the abortion anyways, how mutually consented is that?

Let's say two people get married and have a mutually consented Judeo-Christian marriage. If the marriage is trully mutually consented to, the woman won't get an abortion unless her husband gives permission, correct?

So in mutually consented marriages, the woman won't get abortions w/o the father have given permission. If the woman gets an abortion anyways, it's not really mutally consented.
Your logic is brilliant and impeccable as usual, sgt. Problem is though, that state governments don't recognize as legally binding, the mutually agreed upon and consented to, civil vows and contract known as a Jewish or Roman Catholic marriage any more than they recognize and legitimize homosexual marriages.

Since all civil marriages in the USA are controlled by the family laws of each state, getting a legal homosexual marriage will be as difficult, if not nigh impossible, as having a legally recognized Judeo-Christian marriage.

As long as Judeo-Christian men are denied their reproductive rights in their religious marriages, non-reproductive homosexist marriages don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being legally recognized by the SCOTUS.

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

Snarf wrote: joe christian wrote: Snarf wrote: God is the King of Abortions. 50% of conceptions go right down the toilet, and 10% more are aborted later on. That's a lot of Christian babies God throws away, about 5 million a year just in the U.S. alone, per year...

God is the King all right but atheist and secular man is the Devil's abortionist.
The Devil would never support abortion. Like Mother Theresa, He wants as many souls as can be created...
If the Devil is anti-abortion, then he sure has a special section in Hell where abortionists are roasted alive forever with no hope of a quick and easy abortion.

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

Prole wrote: No, I still do not believe that a blood-tax would be unconstitutional, steen.

Furthermore, paying a blood-tax is not slavery, but a tax, any more than paying a part of your salary to the government means you are part government slave. They are taxing a part of your body, not the entire thing. You are not losing your autonomy any more than you are when being forced to pay any other tax.
Since abortionists demand blood money and suffer blood libel, a blood tax would be in order to offset the loss of blood which the US suffers as the result of a million US babies aborted each year.

Surely the US has the power of eminent domain regarding the blood of it's citizens.

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5288

joe christian wrote: Snarf wrote: joe christian wrote: Snarf wrote: God is the King of Abortions. 50% of conceptions go right down the toilet, and 10% more are aborted later on. That's a lot of Christian babies God throws away, about 5 million a year just in the U.S. alone, per year...

God is the King all right but atheist and secular man is the Devil's abortionist.
The Devil would never support abortion. Like Mother Theresa, He wants as many souls as can be created...
If the Devil is anti-abortion, then he sure has a special section in Hell where abortionists are roasted alive forever with no hope of a quick and easy abortion.
According to your faith, only for those who are not Christians, most are, or don't convert at the very last moment. I always liked that part of the faith; kill with impunity and still catch the ticket to heaven. That's a quite a loophole...

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5597 Location: Fulton, Ks

joe christian wrote: Prole wrote: joe christian wrote: Gay rights don't exist any more than gay marriages do. All rights and marriages are human affairs.
So gays aren't human now?
What are "gays?" If you are referring to feminists and sexists, they have the same human rights everyone else in the US has.
Gays, is refering to people who are attracted to the same sex to a greater extent than the opposite sex. I.e. Rosie O'Donnel

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

Snarf wrote: I always liked that part of the faith; kill with impunity and still catch the ticket to heaven. That's a quite a loophole...
No one kills with impunity or is given a free pass to heaven without their actions being ultimately judged by the Supreme Being of the Universe.

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

The Underground wrote: joe christian wrote: Prole wrote: joe christian wrote: Gay rights don't exist any more than gay marriages do. All rights and marriages are human affairs.
So gays aren't human now?
What are "gays?" If you are referring to feminists and sexists, they have the same human rights everyone else in the US has.
Gays, is refering to people who are attracted to the same sex to a greater extent than the opposite sex. I.e. Rosie O'Donnel
Refering only to those with homosexual tendencies as "gay," is a form of sexist discrimination which denies the capacity for gaiety amongst heterosexual couples. GAIETY:

A state of joyful exuberance or merriment; vivacity.
Merry or joyful activity; festivity: making preparations for the holiday gaieties.
Bright color or showiness, as of dress; finery.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gaiety