Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by thjplgvp, Oct 30, 2006.
This view won't be popular with liberals, Christian or not.
They have put the wants and desires of men over the Word of God and tried to excuse it as "Constitutional".
Children as property of the state. Glad that concept didn't stick around!
Very interesting article.
AGREE IT IS A state issue, not a federal issue. On the other hand, the Declaration of Independance has no legal standing in American law. If it did then the Confederacy should have been permtted to split.
Second, "At what point does a person cease to be property? We are either always property, or never property of either government, parents, or even ourselves," then we are property because in several jurisdictions humans are property, people in the slammer are property, and the Bible authorizes slavery.
I am pretty much a states rights guy and see a definite superiority of returning this issue to the states over what we have now.
However, it is probably time due to various lines of science, medicine, and biology to have a constitutional amendment that defines what constitutes life in a legal sense.
Don't see that happening, when we can't get the ERA passed to define that women have equal rights:
If women aren't considered worthy of equal rights, why should a fetus?
ERA had nothing to do with "rights". It had to do with enshrining women as a minority so that liberal ideals of an egalitarian society could be foisted on everyone. It was a thinly veiled attempt to put the Federal Gov't even more deeply into the business of assuring outcomes at the expense of genuine rights and freedoms.
Employment is not a "right". It is a privilege. Therefore, getting equal pay for equal or even greater work is not a "right".
ERA's only marginally positive impact would have been wage equity which can, has been, and will be taken care of by market and social forces. If women are better at what they do and make companies more money, the demand WILL be higher for them which WILL translate into higher wages. However, it is an individual rather than group task.
If you disagree with me then perhaps take it up with Jesus who said the employer was perfectly justified in paying workers a penny for working an hour while paying another a penny for working all day... it is his business and property. No one forced the employee to work for it.
Life is scientifically definable. It begins with metabolism and ends with the lack of it. "Human" we now know is defined by a genetic code. Therefore, life is a genetically human, metabolizing organism. Pretty simple. Deals directly with the fundamental human right of "life".
Scotty Boy, you sure read a lot into those 24 little words. Not about rights? It starts out "Equality of rights. . ."
You are a spin doctor extraordinaire!! It is not about employment. Whatsa matter? You afraid a woman may be considered equal under the law to us guys? Real men aren't afraid of that, we welcome it.