XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo   
   From: nobody@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/9/2024 4:53 AM, trotsky wrote:   
   > On 10/8/24 2:46 PM, moviePig wrote:   
   >> On 10/8/2024 5:56 AM, trotsky wrote:   
   >>> On 10/7/24 12:06 PM, moviePig wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/7/2024 2:48 AM, trotsky wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/5/24 11:02 AM, moviePig wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/4/2024 6:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/4/2024 5:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2024 3:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2024 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article , moviePig   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should be pissed about the Court because it's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell out personal freedom.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As in?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were taken   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my by Democrats.)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit I'm more   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girlfriend's, my daughter's...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not grant   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal government power over health care, so it's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment--   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but she supports it for her own reasons.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important than someone else's.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "freedom to choose" is more important than   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "freedom to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meddle".   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an Article   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> home the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next time Democrats allow their base to rampage   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> city.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizen have   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However much they choose to. Freedom to choose   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supersedes the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government's freedom to meddle, remember?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destruction.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WMDs...!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> on is the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> reflexively   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> 'screech'?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I just want to get a baseline established so we can then   
   >>>>>>>>>>> compare it to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> your own posts and see how they stack up.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> First, let me check to see if we're now answering questions:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have   
   >>>>>>>>>> access to?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a   
   >>>>>>>> serious   
   >>>>>>>> question)?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy   
   >>>>>>> should a   
   >>>>>>> woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is   
   >>>>>>> apparently   
   >>>>>>> a serious answer to a serious question.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Now my turn:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a   
   >>>>>>> 'screech'?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare   
   >>>>>>> it to   
   >>>>>>> your own posts and see how they stack up.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than   
   >>>>>> you'll want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still   
   >>>>>> unclear on your response to mine:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control   
   >>>>>> *every* aspect of her pregnancy.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester   
   >>>>> without a doctor's edict you're not making sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are   
   >>>> irrelevant.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Interesting, sometimes you sound pretty smart and others like a   
   >>> fucking moron.  Tell the group what part of this you take umbrage to:   
   >>>   
   >>> Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point? - PMC   
   >>> National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)   
   >>>   
   >>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3713799   
   >>> by S Dabbagh · 2009 · Cited by 8 — According to them, the fetus which   
   >>> is 16 weeks can be regarded as human being because of ensoulment. It   
   >>> follows from this that one is authorized ...   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm not for sure, but I believe intentionally aborting a fetus in the   
   >>> third trimester would be considered murder in all 50 states.   
   >>   
   >> Iirc, Buddhists say "ensoulment" occurs at the third trimester, which   
   >> has long seemed to me a reasonable guess.  But it's still just a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)