Free Republic

What do we mean when we say a mother is "with child", a phrase that dates back thousands of years? Fetus is a technical term that's only applicable in a purely clinical context. You're the one playing games with the language.

Reference: the Oxford English Dictionary:

def. of child:

"B. Signification. I. With reference to state or age.

1. a. The unborn or newly born human being; f{oe}tus, infant. App. originally always used in relation to the mother as the ‘fruit of the womb’.
When the application was subsequently extended, the primitive sense was often expressed by babe, baby, infant; but ‘child’ is still the proper term, and retained in phrases, as ‘with child’, ‘to have a child’, ‘child-birth’, the verb to child, etc."

def. of foetus:

"The young of viviparous animals in the womb, and of oviparous animals in the egg, when fully developed."

(Note that the above definition of foetus is the only one offered.)

Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent party. That's why killing combatants in war, killing in self-defense and execution of the guilty are not considered murder.

What is achieved by debating whether or not islam, had a "golden era?"

Another nail in the coffin of multiculturalism. A better understanding of history. Credit where credit's due.

In a word: truth.

MD never met a tax they didn't like.

I've got a question about "victimless crimes." In particular, one crime that has no victim, yet is most certainly a crime. One that society can't let go unpunished and remain cohesive.

Is contempt of court a crime? Ultimately, there has to be some kind of high court, right? You could (theoretically) privatize all the lower courts, but at some point there has to be some court that can say, "if you don't abide by our rules, if you try to skip bail, we will throw you in jail."

Even though you didn't do anything but refuse to show up. You are, after all, innocent, and you never agreed (unless coerced by threat of force) to show up for trial. So there is *no* victim who is injured by your refusal to appear. Only society is injured, because if people don't show up in court, the rule of law becomes non-existant.

Any civilized society has to have a set of laws, and even if you dispense with every other branch of government, you have to, finally, try and punish crimes.

This, of course, opens up a whole can of worms. All of a sudden, it seems that government can, within reason, do anything we see proper to make society function normally. Laws don't exist to defend individual rights, but to keep society functioning because we collectively realize that we'd be far worse off in anarchy. We also, collectively, realize that defending human rights is the best way to keep society stable, and besides that's the whole reason we're trying to avoid anarchy.

That's why the gov't can tax. In fact, the oft-cited alternative is user fees which turn out to be... taxation under a different name. Hey, no one asked you if you wanted the service, they just provided it and put a gun to your head demanding payment. Much like the bums who wash your windshield whether you like it or not.

Wanting to do what's RIGHT is fanaticism?

Hold on a second: souther rock said 'I believe in doing what is right. Apart from what is right, there are no "solutions".'

As I see it, he is essentially saying that since he doesn't see anything right, he's going to do nothing. That, to my mind, is apathy which is the creed of someone who can't accept that the world doesn't work the way he wants it to. Same thing a fanatic believes, see my earlier post.

Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice. I agree with Goldwater. When it comes to, say, the Communists, extremism is certainly the order of the day. They presented a clear and present danger to our liberty, and so in that case it was no vice.

Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Yeah, if you want to be a virtuous person, politics probably isn't your best career option. I consider good manners to be a virtue, as well as kindness and forthright, clear speech. "Moderation" (really expediency) sucks, but that's how solutions, however imperfect and thus wrong, happen. This is especially true when you're fighting the inertia of a welfare state.

Apathy and fanaticism are two sides of the same coin.

No. Stop all social programs instead.

Considering that 98% of the country would never actually assent to such an idea, do you have any actual solutions?

When Israel was created, they had just fought a war against those people... you don't suppose that had anything to do with they're reasoning?

Now the Arabs continue to pick fights with the Israelis, hoping they can reclaim some ancient relics either through force or guile.

While the leaders continue these pathetic attacks, the refugees are not welcome in other countries. Of all the failings of the Muslim world, this is the worst. You can rob me, shoot me, terrorize me, this is all normal human affairs. To turn your brother away when he's seeking refuge is unforgivable.

If the Palestinians were smart, they'd quit their bitching and just breed until they could outvote the Jews.

Unfortunately, they have an unshakable death wish.

BTW, is there a list for stuff on the ME and Israel?

What you are trying to tell me is 600,000 people can impose their beliefs on 1,2000,000 and it's going to be acceptable to those 1,200,000 and that those 1,200,000, and the people who share their religion, won't be angry with the U. S., Israel, and many othere.

Hmmm... So could we annex Canada because there are 250 million of us and only 20 million of them?

How does this international democracy work? It seems like a rather novel theory.

It might be true... here's another statistic: there are exactly 1000 people cut out to be CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies.

You've never seen a guy in a grey trenchcoat flying around with helicopter blades coming out of his head?

Oh wait, that's Inspector Gadget. My bad.

I dunno if that's true... I heard about a great scam where some guys mailed out adverts with a great deal on porn. A bunch of people bit, but they never actually had any goods. Instead they sent an apology along with a full refund, catch was that the check was from the "Beastiality and Bondage Store" or something like that. This was back when you'd have to give the check to a teller to deposit it.

From a philosophical standpoint, everyone has the same rights since rights are granted by God and are thus absolute and immutable.

The question, I think, is not exactly what rights they have but whether or not those rights (and the corresponding freedoms) are protected. Citizens are fully protected, since they are part of "the people."

Aliens in theory are protected by their homeland, in practice nations agree to protect each other's aliens, quid pro quo. Even enemy uniformed soldiers are protected under that principle, so as to alleviate the brutality of war. The terrorists, however, are spies, and I agree with Jonah Goldberg that we should just shoot them.

Come on, it's only Bud.

I am disputing the notion that anti-semitism is an exclusively leftist phenomenon.

Alright, how about we restrict it to the groups that really matter: decision makers and pundits among the mainstream left vs. the mainstream right.

On the right we have Patrick Buchanan who suggests we cut Israel loose. Maybe it would be fairer to call it isolationism. On the left we have the entire United Nations.

Re: Jews, leftism and anti-semitism:

Don't forget that just as Americans can be anti-American, Jews can be anti-semitic. Obviously they're not going to be holocaust denying fanatics or anything, just the usual simpering liberals decrying the evils of Western civilization.

Some might argue whether or not this constitutes anti-semitism, and I'll admit my definition is fairly broad. I think you can either acknowledge the Israelis right to a homeland or believe they should capitulate. I don't see a tenable middle ground.

How about Berkley, China?