Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
That is why I know I'm superior. I got all my legal knowledge from "L.A. Law"
what is the text of this new state law scotus has written? how much money has the state of texas allocated to enforce it?
Billions more in tax dollars is siphoned out of our pockets to pay medical bills, and taxation is itself a restriction on liberty.
great point! hey, why don't we regulate what foods people can and can't eat as well - those fat people are bleeding us dry comrade! socialism is cool - it let's me pass judgement on all kinds of 'anti-social' people.
Instead of compounding one wrong with another, how about we get rid of welfare and socialized medicine? Let the free-market handle it.
I can't believe you are arguing for Nanny Statism because to do otherwise it might endanger your socialist Medicare.
Oh. I hope the other guy answers the questions to your satisfaction, because then it will be your turn, and I'll be interested to see what the "official" answers are from you, since you claim to have "the" answers. But I have a feeling that if he tries to answer the questions, you'll only ask him more questions, and then even more, asking him to "clarify", etc....and somehow I'll never get the honor of witnessing you answering your own "fairly easy" questions.
There pretty much always the same thing. The law is about what you 'ought' do and what you 'ought not' do. Where the law is silent on what you 'ought not' do there is tacit approval. 'Oughts' and 'ought nots' are value-decisions. Thus they are moral decisions. The idea that the law and morality can be divorced is only a doctrine that can be held by libertarians who want society to be forced to ignore the costs of perversion.
We have abortion or the morning after pill as a back up. Plus, we can refrain from intercoure
2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent, even if they are otherwise competent.
She is either capable of deciding or she is not. If the state says she is capable and she does it in her private home who is the state to intrude ?
3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.
The family is an outdated religious constraint. Don't go imposing your religious views on me and my daughter
Agreed, in so far as that viewpoint is legislated.
I don't think it says one way or the other how he feels about it morally.
I think the behavior at issue is clearly immoral, but I agree with Justice Thomas that is should probably not be illegal. They way the Court went about legalizing it, however, is despicable.
In this case --- state's (( society )) rights !
Lag time: approx. 5.5 seconds
Speed: unknown
Trajectory: SSE
Distance to endpoint (kilometers): unknown
Event duration: inconclusive
0000
00000
000000
0000601
Unfortunately, yes.
All I want is sincere and legitimate answers to the questions.
What are rights?
What do they include?
What are their limitations?
By what yardstick do we differentiate "right" from "non-right"?
I don't understand why no one is willing to take a cut at it.
There was a time when charity was properly handled as such. Then it was handed over to those that do not recognize the name of the one who asked it be done. The glory now belongs to the state and the shame is on those that abandoned the former for the later.
I promise I won't plaque your teeth. I might sour the milk in your fridge though.... ;-)
I disagree. Lying is definitely immoral, but few would advocate a law outlawing it.
I can't believe you are arguing for Nanny Statism because to do otherwise it might endanger your socialist Medicare.
If a bisexual man with AIDS impregnates a woman and the baby she delivers has the AIDS virus, I suppose you would advocate euthanizing that child, wouldn't you. I'm all for cutting the welfare state in half or better. Unfortunately, if people like you keep apologizing for perversion, it will be difficult to cut it since the social costs of these depravities must be picked up somehow.
As long as libertarian social ideas are prevalent, the government will keep growing.
That was YOU on the cover of "Incoherent-Street-Bum-Lunatic" magazine????
Wow... a celebrity
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.