100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice | |
|---|---|
|
|
oh that's hilarious  yellow rose 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Mon 05/18/09 09:19 PM
|
|
well if you follow the declaration of independence abortion is illegal -------------------------------------------------------------------- endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life -------------------------------------------------------------------- as soon as cells are created by their creator (their parents) thy have the unalienable right to life just a thought but hey what do i know Well now if their creator meant as you suggest their parents, the certainly their parents go revoke that right. So your arguement there would certainly fall apart. However what the authors of the declaration of independence referred to as "creator" was God, not the parents. The question is at what point does a fetus become a human being. That is where the debate is not whether or not a human has a right to life. you are assuming that creator is meant to be god and the parent does not have the right to out weigh the declaration of independence creator Noun a person who creates Creator Noun the Creator God -------------------------- but with the seperation of church and state that throws out the god referance thus the only definition left is person who creates thus the parents --------------------------- either you have separation or you do not can not have it both ways And you say we should play games with the constitution!? If you want to use it so much you should do a bit more studying on it. The word creator was used to help maintain that separation, creator would be assumed to mean any god or deity that a person might believe in. Even though our forefathers were looking for religious freedom, atheism was still not really accepted as an alternative nor was it widely believed. Check with any proper authority on the constitution you choose and you'll find that creator applied to a deity not your parents. and i believe that the parents are the deity that created them and as you said """any god or deity that a person might believe in.""" so it fits Ok fine then, if the parents are God for that fetus and they are instilling that right why would they not be able to revoke it. It is they that gave the right not the constitution, constitutions even says so. Also if you wish to play these silly semantics I could point out that you left out a key piece of the DoI in your quote. So the entire quote should have been. ------------------------------- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ------------------------------- So by your logic and silliness, if the fetus is a female it has no rights guaranteed it by our constitution. Either we accept the interpretations given to us by those who have properly researched it's intent and meaning or we have a bunch of silly words on a piece of paper, you can't have it both ways 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
nope not wrestling with dave but rose now that could be arranged    
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
nope not wrestling with dave but rose now that could be arranged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well if you follow the declaration of independence abortion is illegal -------------------------------------------------------------------- endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life -------------------------------------------------------------------- as soon as cells are created by their creator (their parents) thy have the unalienable right to life just a thought but hey what do i know Well now if their creator meant as you suggest their parents, the certainly their parents go revoke that right. So your arguement there would certainly fall apart. However what the authors of the declaration of independence referred to as "creator" was God, not the parents. The question is at what point does a fetus become a human being. That is where the debate is not whether or not a human has a right to life. you are assuming that creator is meant to be god and the parent does not have the right to out weigh the declaration of independence creator Noun a person who creates Creator Noun the Creator God -------------------------- but with the seperation of church and state that throws out the god referance thus the only definition left is person who creates thus the parents --------------------------- either you have separation or you do not can not have it both ways And you say we should play games with the constitution!? If you want to use it so much you should do a bit more studying on it. The word creator was used to help maintain that separation, creator would be assumed to mean any god or deity that a person might believe in. Even though our forefathers were looking for religious freedom, atheism was still not really accepted as an alternative nor was it widely believed. Check with any proper authority on the constitution you choose and you'll find that creator applied to a deity not your parents. and i believe that the parents are the deity that created them and as you said """any god or deity that a person might believe in.""" so it fits Ok fine then, if the parents are God for that fetus and they are instilling that right why would they not be able to revoke it. It is they that gave the right not the constitution, constitutions even says so. Also if you wish to play these silly semantics I could point out that you left out a key piece of the DoI in your quote. So the entire quote should have been. ------------------------------- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ------------------------------- So by your logic and silliness, if the fetus is a female it has no rights guaranteed it by our constitution. Either we accept the interpretations given to us by those who have properly researched it's intent and meaning or we have a bunch of silly words on a piece of paper, you can't have it both ways
no i said deity as you said deity or god why say both if they are the same deity [dee-it-ee] Noun pl -ties 1. a god or goddess 2. the state of being divine free dictionary i said creator as does the declaration of independance... NOT (""play games with the constitution!"") ya really need to get the documents correct 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rapunzel
on
Mon 05/18/09 09:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well if you follow the declaration of independence abortion is illegal -------------------------------------------------------------------- endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life -------------------------------------------------------------------- as soon as cells are created by their creator (their parents) thy have the unalienable right to life just a thought but hey what do i know Well now if their creator meant as you suggest their parents, the certainly their parents go revoke that right. So your arguement there would certainly fall apart. However what the authors of the declaration of independence referred to as "creator" was God, not the parents. The question is at what point does a fetus become a human being. That is where the debate is not whether or not a human has a right to life. you are assuming that creator is meant to be god and the parent does not have the right to out weigh the declaration of independence creator Noun a person who creates Creator Noun the Creator God -------------------------- but with the seperation of church and state that throws out the god referance thus the only definition left is person who creates thus the parents --------------------------- either you have separation or you do not can not have it both ways And you say we should play games with the constitution!? If you want to use it so much you should do a bit more studying on it. The word creator was used to help maintain that separation, creator would be assumed to mean any god or deity that a person might believe in. Even though our forefathers were looking for religious freedom, atheism was still not really accepted as an alternative nor was it widely believed. Check with any proper authority on the constitution you choose and you'll find that creator applied to a deity not your parents. and i believe that the parents are the deity that created them and as you said """any god or deity that a person might believe in.""" so it fits Then that is your interpretation. It's not what the Constitution pertains to as "creator". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
Love?!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well if you follow the declaration of independence abortion is illegal -------------------------------------------------------------------- endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life -------------------------------------------------------------------- as soon as cells are created by their creator (their parents) thy have the unalienable right to life just a thought but hey what do i know Well now if their creator meant as you suggest their parents, the certainly their parents go revoke that right. So your arguement there would certainly fall apart. However what the authors of the declaration of independence referred to as "creator" was God, not the parents. The question is at what point does a fetus become a human being. That is where the debate is not whether or not a human has a right to life. you are assuming that creator is meant to be god and the parent does not have the right to out weigh the declaration of independence creator Noun a person who creates Creator Noun the Creator God -------------------------- but with the seperation of church and state that throws out the god referance thus the only definition left is person who creates thus the parents --------------------------- either you have separation or you do not can not have it both ways And you say we should play games with the constitution!? If you want to use it so much you should do a bit more studying on it. The word creator was used to help maintain that separation, creator would be assumed to mean any god or deity that a person might believe in. Even though our forefathers were looking for religious freedom, atheism was still not really accepted as an alternative nor was it widely believed. Check with any proper authority on the constitution you choose and you'll find that creator applied to a deity not your parents. and i believe that the parents are the deity that created them and as you said """any god or deity that a person might believe in.""" so it fits Ok fine then, if the parents are God for that fetus and they are instilling that right why would they not be able to revoke it. It is they that gave the right not the constitution, constitutions even says so. Also if you wish to play these silly semantics I could point out that you left out a key piece of the DoI in your quote. So the entire quote should have been. ------------------------------- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ------------------------------- So by your logic and silliness, if the fetus is a female it has no rights guaranteed it by our constitution. Either we accept the interpretations given to us by those who have properly researched it's intent and meaning or we have a bunch of silly words on a piece of paper, you can't have it both ways
no i said deity as you said deity or god why say both if they are the same deity [dee-it-ee] Noun pl -ties 1. a god or goddess 2. the state of being divine free dictionary i said creator as does the declaration of independance... Get a grip here guy, I used those words because I was trying to describe what was meant when they use the world Creator (and that word is capitalized in the DoI btw). It would not make much sense to use the word creator to define the word Creator.i As for the miss-step in documents what can I say some times things get crossed up between threads oops sorry 'bout that chief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you are interpreting what is written
i am taking it as literal and i knew you crossed threads i was teasing ya but who is anyone to say what they meant i am taking what they wrote and not twisting it to mean anything other than what it says i quoted what they said you made your interpretation of what you think they said so i applied your interpretation as it could be applied |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
Love?!
good winx...get the rumors going lol love the pics rapunzel!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rapunzel
on
Mon 05/18/09 10:06 PM
|
|
yeah thanks
 i love the one 
with the popcorn and the three D glasses
i remember watching the movie
13 ghosts with abbott & costello
at the bigscreen back in the early 60's
and we had to put those 3D glasses on
if we wanted to see the ghosts... 
it was hilarious
not very high tech  back then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
Love?!
good winx...get the rumors going lol love the pics rapunzel!! Okay...I'll get ready to start the rumors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 05/18/09 10:06 PM
|
|
rapunzel...I love davey and adj both....and love watching 2 smart men go at it...now if we only had a mud pit for them to wrestle in
Love?!
good winx...get the rumors going lol love the pics rapunzel!! oh boy rose LOVES me wooo hhhoooooooooo 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you are interpreting what is written i am taking it as literal again if you take it literally then your lose your arguement big time and the document really means nothing at all. and i knew you crossed threads i was teasing ya I assumed which is why I responded in kind
but who is anyone to say what they meant This is where the study part comes in. There is much known about the authors based on what was written about them at the time and other things they themselves have said. Those writings and that personal information is what experts in the field have used to determine the intent of those words. And even if you wish to take it literally well then the fact that the chose to capitalize the word Creator means that they are using it as if it were a name like God rather than god. So a literal interpretation really does bring the same meaning. i quoted what they said you made your interpretation of what you think they said Not my interpretation
so i applied your interpretation as it could be applied Yes and I showed you were even taking it to that silly degree you were still wrong about it being illegal based on the DoI. |
|
|
|
|
