Simple Question:

[NYcarbineer]

If you can't read for comprehension in context, then you're too stupid to bother with.

It doesn't define itself in context.

Yes, it does, if you know how to read.

Read your post, then read mine in full. Don't be scared to sound out the big words.

I answered your question once. Was your question meant to have a right or wrong answer?

If you think my answer was wrong, let's debate it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Might makes right. Has since the the first man got hungry. It's getting better though... To the future!

Yes that's absolutely true. Your rights are determined by who you are, where you are, when you are. Your rights are determined by who holds the power to determine what your rights are.

Only a wimpy liberal like you would think his rights were determined by someone else. You're nothing but a whiney sissy. Let's see you stand up, pull your pants up off your ass, and get your damn head out of la la land. Dumb ass,

What right(s) do you think you have that the government does protect, or that the government doesn't allow,

and how and when and where do you exercise them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Might makes right. Has since the the first man got hungry. It's getting better though... To the future!

Yes that's absolutely true. Your rights are determined by who you are, where you are, when you are. Your rights are determined by who holds the power to determine what your rights are.

Only a wimpy liberal like you would think his rights were determined by someone else. You're nothing but a whiney sissy. Let's see you stand up, pull your pants up off your ass, and get your damn head out of la la land. Dumb ass,

So I guess if I think that 16 year olds in NYS have the right to consent to sex, but the state says otherwise,

I should say screw the state, and go ahead and get a 16 year old girlfriend,

and no harm will come to me, because no 'someone else' has the power to tell her what her rights are...

lol

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

While I actually agree with your point-next time be more slick about it. It was painfully obvious based on the first post where you were going with this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only if the 'others' are legally protected from harm.

My right to do as I wish with/to my own body extends to acts which cause direct harm to others so long as they are legally protected from harm?

No. You do not have the right to harm others, provided the others are legally protected from such harm.

You mean like those past the 1st trimester of gestation, at which point the state, in pursuit of its compelling interest, can place all kinds of limitations on your actions -- from waiting periods to prohibition.

Glad you agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

You only have the right to harm others as an act of self-defense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My right to do as I wish with/to my own body extends to acts which cause direct harm to others so long as they are legally protected from harm?

No. You do not have the right to harm others, provided the others are legally protected from such harm.

You mean like those past the 1st trimester of gestation, at which point the state, in pursuit of its compelling interest, can place all kinds of limitations on your actions -- from waiting periods to prohibition.

Glad you agree.

That's Roe v. Wade. Glad you agree with IT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. You do not have the right to harm others, provided the others are legally protected from such harm.

You mean like those past the 1st trimester of gestation, at which point the state, in pursuit of its compelling interest, can place all kinds of limitations on your actions -- from waiting periods to prohibition.
Glad you agree.

That's Roe v. Wade. Glad you agree with IT.

Did I say -I- agree with it?
Its the basis for -your- argument, and so, since -you- find it sound, you're then happy to agree that waiting periods on abortions are constitutional.

 

[snjmom]

You only have the right to harm others as an act of self-defense.

Or in defense of property, no?

 

[grunt11b]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean like those past the 1st trimester of gestation, at which point the state, in pursuit of its compelling interest, can place all kinds of limitations on your actions -- from waiting periods to prohibition.
Glad you agree.

That's Roe v. Wade. Glad you agree with IT.

Did I say -I- agree with it?
Its the basis for -your- argument, and so, since -you- find it sound, you're then happy to agree that waiting periods on abortions are constitutional.

I don't object to states imposing waiting periods after the first trimester. IMHO they are unconstitutional in the 1st trimester.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

While I actually agree with your point-next time be more slick about it. It was painfully obvious based on the first post where you were going with this.

That's why he freaked when I nailed him on it.

 

[blastoff]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Who told you you have a right to do as you will or want with your body? It is illegal to commit suicide, and ingesting dangerous drugs sans a doctor's supervision will also get you arrested and punished, among other things.

How many years to ya get for suicide? How can it be illegal to committ suicide when you won't be around to face a jury of yer bones?

Kinda like why do they bother to alcohol swab a condemned guy's arm before they insert the lethal injection needle? Afraid the dead person's gonna complain about a little infection?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's Roe v. Wade. Glad you agree with IT.

Did I say -I- agree with it?
Its the basis for -your- argument, and so, since -you- find it sound, you're then happy to agree that waiting periods on abortions are constitutional.

I don't object to states imposing waiting periods after the first trimester. IMHO they are unconstitutional in the 1st trimester.

Though, I suppose that you really do object, you simply know that, because you support Roe, you cannot argue otherwise.

 

[JBeukema]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Hi, you have received -89 reputation points from Grace.
Reputation was given for this post.

Too hard a question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You only have the right to harm others as an act of self-defense.

Or in defense of property, no?

Often, yes.
It's all self-defense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did I say -I- agree with it?
Its the basis for -your- argument, and so, since -you- find it sound, you're then happy to agree that waiting periods on abortions are constitutional.

I don't object to states imposing waiting periods after the first trimester. IMHO they are unconstitutional in the 1st trimester.

Though, I suppose that you really do object, you simply know that, because you support Roe, you cannot argue otherwise.

I should have said, more precisely, that I don't object to states having the right to impose waiting periods after the first trimester.

 

[snjmom]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Hi, you have received -89 reputation points from Grace.
Reputation was given for this post.

Too hard a question?

I noticed you haven't responded to mine. What right does another have to my body?

 

[JBeukema]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Hi, you have received -89 reputation points from Grace.
Reputation was given for this post.

Too hard a question?

I noticed you haven't responded to mine. What right does another have to my body?

When you chose to have sex, you accepted the risks. You invited the sperm into your body knowing full-well that the purpose of the sperm was to meet with your ovum and create a new human life. You invited the sperm into your body and you invited any resulting child into your body.

So spare the bullshit. If you didn't want to have another life dependent on you, you should have kept you legs closed.

Now cue Grace and Ravi to come crying about how 1% of abortions justify the 93% done for convenience because the relationship between your parents decides whether or not killing you is okay

 

[G.T.]

dude, get over abortion already