Pilot's Political Orientation

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist
judges?


Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be
no
"conservative activist judges".

Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
equal with Evolution?

Both notional hypothesis are equal under the scientific method, but we can
know that evolution is false. How about we teach science in science class
and consign evolution to the ash heap of discredited science? After all, at
the beginning of each geological period a large number of species come into
existance, followed by an extiction of some species slowing as the time line
extends. The facts are the opposite of Darwin's process and that is not
only a science problem, but also a cognitive dissonance problem for the
athiest.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
equal with Evolution?


Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
equal with Evolution?


Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush


Yes, and the limits ought to be other people's freedom, nothing else.

"Pete" wrote in message
...

Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't
ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one)


The "you can't control my body" argument of the pro-abortion crowd never
made sense to me. As I see it, in a free society a person owns their own
body. It's their property. They can do whatever they like with it. Tattoo
it, pierce it, amputate a limb, alter it any way you want. It's yours. You
want to inject drugs into it? That's fine by me, just don't operate a motor
vehicle on a public road while you're under the influence. You want to rent
it out to a lonely man for a short time? Fine. You can do anything you
want to your own body, even destroy it. But you can't do that to the body
of another, including an unborn body. That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another. The "you can't control my body" argument is
actually an argument AGAINST abortion.

Gene Seibel wrote:
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
.com...

I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.

You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
explanation/argument?


Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.



That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.

Neither was taxation... sigh.

Matt

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

Susan B. Anthony advocated banning abortion based on men forcing their women
to abort. She was successful in nearly every US State. The issue of who's
money is it has much to do with abortion.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.


Well, then, let's not prohibit abortion, let's just prohibit the ending of a
life not your own.



When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.