APP - Pro-choicer kills anti-abortionist

TuTu Monroe said:
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.




​
Click to expand...

What a gift to trial lawyers. totally insane.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.




​
Click to expand...

Two of my brothers and 3 others formed a partnership to develop a sub-division on the CA coast. They hired engineers and began to develop. There was an enviro nut neighbor, a greedy DA, and liberal paper that set their caps against them. Long story short my brother as the development leader was harassed and eventually sued on behalf of a small fish. Animals already have representation.

The story has a lot more of the ridiculous to it, but suffice it to say, once the judge and the assistant DA got the complete story they threw out the case and levied a small fine.
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
Two of my brothers and 3 others formed a partnership to develop a sub-division on the CA coast. They hired engineers and began to develop. There was an enviro nut neighbor, a greedy DA, and liberal paper that set their caps against them. Long story short my brother as the development leader was harassed and eventually sued on behalf of a small fish. Animals already have representation.

The story has a lot more of the ridiculous to it, but suffice it to say, once the judge and the assistant DA got the complete story they through out the case and levied a small fine.
Click to expand...

I can certainly understand that. The crazy enviro nuts have their noses all over this state.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I can certainly understand that. The crazy enviro nuts have their noses all over this state.
Click to expand...

The real pisser was that when the plans for the run-off into the creek that dumps into the Pacific were submitted, they told my brother that the plans from the engineer he had hired would create too much silt into the creek. They made him hire and pay for their, the counties, engineer to design the ditch for run off. So he did, and it was their engineer's design that caused the problem...
 
apple0154 said:
Well, I'm not sure I appreciate the adjective "simple", however, I do not believe it is a murder. When it's legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy but if someone else terminates the pregnancy it's considered a murder is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Your response didn't answer the question.

Here; let me help you, seeing as how you have a tendency to go off track.
I asked:
"So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomach, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault."

A simple YES or a NO will suffice.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.




​
Click to expand...

But we're their "caretakers", if you believe what some of the wacko's want to put forth.
 
apple0154 said:
How anyone (anti-abortionists) can justify forcing someone to bring a child into the world when hundreds of children are dying every day from a lack of basic care defies logic and common sense.
Click to expand...
You anti-life folks need to take responsibility for your actions.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Your response didn't answer the question.

Here; let me help you, seeing as how you have a tendency to go off track.
I asked:
"So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomach, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault."

A simple YES or a NO will suffice.
Click to expand...

Define "simple assault"? Is there a legal definition? A person can be verbally assaulted as well as physically assaulted. One can push another or beat the hell out of them. Are all those considered a "simple assault"?
 
apple0154 said:
Define "simple assault"? Is there a legal definition? A person can be verbally assaulted as well as physically assaulted. One can push another or beat the hell out of them. Are all those considered a "simple assault"?
Click to expand...

I guess you overlooked the part where I said "punched in the stomach".

You're really failing here apple.

I'm still waiting for a YES or NO answer, to the question.
 
apple0154 said:
That's precisely what we do. A person thinks through the implications of bearing a child. Will they take the time to raise it properly? Do they have sufficient resources? Just to name two.
Click to expand...

Yes, killing someone is taking responsibility for your own actions. Well said.
 
T&A said:
Yes, killing someone is taking responsibility for your own actions. Well said.
Click to expand...

of course....as apple said, people think through the implications.....like the convenience store robber, who upon realizing that the clerk may be able to testify against them in court, blows them away.....so too, realizing they may have to crimp their style if a child is born, they take responsibility by blowing the kid away.....
 
apple0154 said:
That's precisely what we do. A person thinks through the implications of bearing a child. Will they take the time to raise it properly? Do they have sufficient resources? Just to name two.
Click to expand...
It must be a nice option to kill another person when they become inconvenient to your lifestyle.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I guess you overlooked the part where I said "punched in the stomach".

You're really failing here apple.

I'm still waiting for a YES or NO answer, to the question.
Click to expand...

Obviously I have to go through this a bit slower for you.

A guy can be punched in the stomach, double over for a few moments, then walk away slightly crooked and the next day he's back at work. Another guy can be punched in the stomach with such force he suffers damage to his gall bladder or pancreas or has internal hemorrhaging.

Do you consider both scenarios a "simple assault"? A "Yes" or "No" answer is all that's required from you.
 
Southern Man said:
It must be a nice option to kill another person when they become inconvenient to your lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but there is no person. People do not hatch, they do not arrive on storks and people do not live inside other people's bodies. A person has to be born. That's why we're referred to as "individuals"; apart from each other.

Responsible, mature, compassionate people do not bring individuals into the world if they feel they can not properly look after them.

In the past people bore children counting on their children to look after them in their old age. They bore excessive numbers of children expecting some of them to die or otherwise not be able to care for them. We see that, today, in impoverished countries. There was nothing and is nothing altruistic about bearing a child.

Similarly, governments preventing abortion did not do so out of some religious or moral conscience. Take, for example, France’s Napoleon III. In 1869 he went wheeling and dealing with Pope Pius IX. France's population had declined over the previous 60 years and France, always up to a good war, needed more young men they could send to the slaughter.

Anyway, the back room deal was in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility Pope Pius IX forbade all abortions. In simple terms Napoleon would say the Pope was never wrong and in exchange the Pope would tell his flock to churn out little soldiers. Truly a deal made in Hell.
 
apple0154 said:
Define "simple assault"? Is there a legal definition? A person can be verbally assaulted as well as physically assaulted. One can push another or beat the hell out of them. Are all those considered a "simple assault"?
Click to expand...


Being obtuse lost it's luster with you back on the WOT, Apple.

You chose your screenname well. The fruit that would jump-start the "process" of the demise of mankind, in the Biblical sense...
 
apple0154 said:
Ahh, but there is no person. People do not hatch, they do not arrive on storks and people do not live inside other people's bodies. A person has to be born. That's why we're referred to as "individuals"; apart from each other.....
Click to expand...
After the baby is born it's still dependent on others- can't be apart from others. I guess it's OK to kill them then too.
 
apple0154 said:
Responsible, mature, compassionate people do not bring individuals into the world if they feel they can not properly look after them.
Click to expand...

are you saying that responsible, mature, compassionate people should kill them instead?.....

A person has to be born. That's why we're referred to as "individuals"; apart from each other.
Click to expand...
a person needs to be conceived before she can be born....and the moment of conception is when we can be scientifically identified, by means of DNA analysis, as an individual.....different from father, different from mother, different from any other human individual......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top