jackattack

Alex Smith... :lol:

Right, so abortion would be outlawed in one state and not in the state next to it... can't you see the futile nature of that situation? :? If the court was out of the way I'd think we would be able to eventually get it in every state. Don't forget, even in California we voted to ban gay marriage. It was the court that made it legal. No. The fair comparison would be Barack Obama having stood at his candidacy launch in Illinois and shouted "Vote for me - I know what it's like to be black!". As mentioned by flipflop, if they were playing that sort of politics, Hillary would have been a better choice anyway. No a fair comparison would be that if Obama was not black he would not have even been a state senator. If Palin had been a dude she would not have been a vp pick but she still may have been Governor. How many gaffes has Obama made? 57 states? Conceived during the Selma march? The Americans liberated Auschwitz? The Life article he made up in his book? The tornado that killed 10,000 people? Sioux City Iowa? Kentucky is closer to Arkansas than Illinois? And you made a pretty big deal about McCain's misspeak in Iraq. How about Obama who doesn't even know what language they speak in Afghanistan?

That is ringing a bell. I forget which Federalist it was though. But with the ninth amendment I don't think they wouldn't have been against it.

Don't even hate on Tom Brady. He's from like one town over from me. I went to his school. He donated his Superbowl car to it.

I'm pretty sure their medical facilities were about as extensive as ticks and leeches. So why can't we say abortion falls under those amendments as Earl Warren and I believe? Btw, you don't know your history very well. The states AGAINST a Bill of Rights used that argument as their main reason for not having them. They foresaw, quite accurately, that people in the future would use the Bill of Rights as an "end all, be all". I didn't think anyone was against a Bill of Rights. And what does Earl Warren have to do with this. I don't think he was even alive when Roe v. Wade was decided. Maybe pigs will fly before you actually start addressing arguments given to you. :roll: For something to be a "right" there has to be a consensus for that right. Freedom of speech is a right in your country because the consensus is that the press should have freedom to express themselves, with certain obvious restrictions. My point was about the extent to which "rights" can be given to an unborn baby (before the 24 week mark) given that it is a topic of such a controversial nature. Banning abortion in favour of the pro-life organisers would be in total ignorance to the equally as strong pro-choice argument. Therefore, you cannot apply a blanket "right" when there is no general consensus, and while there is a movement opposed to the banning of abortion which would become so resistant if a ban ever did come into effect. There is a consensus in many places. As someone said earlier many states are just waiting for the Roe v. Wade decision to be overturned. There are laws already passed that would outlaw abortion once they take effect after Roe v. Wade is overturned.

How can Sham-WOW not work? Would Vince Offer lie to you? I've heard that those kinoki footpads are bs. I heard if you just put water on them they change color like they should when they take the 'toxins' out of your body.

that's what scares me the most. The fact that we don't know anything about our government. Well it's quite simple really. Our government consists of three branches. 1. The Executive which includes The President and until Cheney it included the Vice President. 2. The Legislative, which includes the House and the Senate. The House is made up of 435 members elected on basis of population. The Senate is made up of 100 members, 2 from every state. 3. The Judicial branch is made up of the Supreme court justices who are appointed by the President for life. After that there are state and local governments. And don't forget about the secret world government controlled by all the wealthy businessmen. ;)

[hide=] [/hide] -She believes everything is a work of God as I'm sure many do. -Obama has two daughters. Does that disqualify him from being President? Why not? The 9th and 10th Amendments. I'm not saying they should ban it at all, that would be as invalid as mandating it should be legal. It should just be left to state legislatures. Right, and there are state legislatures who have bans ready and rearing to go if Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned. So I ask you this: what other things would you leave only to the state legislatures? I asked Jack about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which technically by your definition is unconstitutional. This is exactly why I cannot stand our Bill of Rights, and why I agreed with James Madison. I know people who do not think Universal Health Care is a "right", simply because it's not listed in the Bill of Rights. I'm pretty sure James Madison didn't think universal health care was a right. And obviously the framers didn't think the Bill of Rights was every right. That's why they left the door open to amendments. There is no article by that name. You are referring to Levonorgestel, which only works in the first 72 hours after intercourse. This leads to one problem, and one fallacy in the pro-life argument. The problem is that not all rape cases are reported within 72 hours, and some even go unreported altogether. It becomes impossible for a woman in such a situation to get the medication - unless that is, you honestly suggest we should punish rape victims for not coming forward within the first 72 hours by not offering them an abortion. Nor is it 100% efficient either - anything less than 100% would still leave a possible need for an abortion open. The fallacy is that pro-life demonstrators argue life begins at conception. 72 hours after fertilisation is still a life to them nonetheless, thus logically they cannot argue this would be a suitable alternative to an abortion. A child which may or may not philosophically exist depending on when you deem life to have started. Giving blanket rights to a life whose existence remains such a controversial argument with strong points on both sides is ludicrous. Hence why it should be left for the woman to decide what she deems as the start of life; and if a woman does believe life starts at conception, not to opt for an abortion and have the child. What if the woman thinks life begins when the child can talk? Is a 24 week old baby that is born more of a person than a 9 month old baby that is still in the womb? And fertilization doesn't occur immediately. It can take a few days.

Aw yes. Dawkins, the infallible pope of atheism. And more would be achieved. More tv watching.

I never said it had conscious thought. All I said was that it was a human. You don't dispute that do you?

^^ Actually most women are against abortion. It would be males age 13-35 who are for it most. http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/jul/ ... 636-9509r/

^^ When the sperm hits the egg. The only strategy pro-choice people have is to try and dehumanize the baby just like slaves or jews during the holocaust. No one likes to talk about killing a baby. That would mean it's human. They talk about a fetus.

The baby that would otherwise be exterminated.

Enforcing constitutional rights to the baby.

I think the only thing that is more ridiculous than this are the comments left on the bottom of the page. They are actually arguing about not whether aliens exist or not, but whether they have time travel.

^^ It could be that they just aren't as enlightened as you.

What about them?

No, the civil rights act only enforced constitutional rights. And at the very least congress should decide on it instead of Judges who are accountable to no one.

USA .24 Must be an Ellis Island thing.

The tenth amendment?

+1 No, but I've live baited a fish once and I didn't think it felt any pain.

I was at the game but didn't see the fight. I heard he hit his head on the ground or something. He died like a week after the fight.

This is stupid. You probably think your hella sick if you fight hella people but your not. Honestly it's stupid. Two guys I know got in a fight after a Giants game last year. They weren't really my friends but I had hung out with them a few times. One punch. That was it. One kid died and the other is in jail. I went to the funeral and I saw his mother sitting there. It's just ridiculous. Over absolutely nothing and now the kids dead. Just because the other kid was trying to be cool.

^^ That just made me realize...either way there will be a state championship basketball player in the white house. That takes away one of the reasons I might want to vote for Obama. I don't think they do. I'm not really a big fisherman but I think the reason they try to escape is survival instinct and not pain. You should really stop commenting on things you quite clearly know absolutely nothing about. Pain serves two biological purposes. The first is to remove the organism from danger. If I put my hand on a boiling hot metal kettle, I feel nervous pain which triggers a reflex response to move me away from danger (i.e., move my hand away). Secondly, the unpleasant feeling of pain teaches me to not put my hand on the kettle again in the future. This "survival instinct" you speak of doesn't exist. Anyways, this has nothing to do Sarah Palin, I'm ending it here. I don't think it's been definitively settled either way. Fishermen say it doesn't and PETA says it does. I think it's like the worm. When you put a worm on a hook it squirms. I doubt worms feel pain. And obviously pain doesn't teach fish not to bite the hook.

I don't think they do. I'm not really a big fisherman but I think the reason they try to escape is survival instinct and not pain.