7th Circuit Approves Warrentless Gun Seizures

[cwill1973]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?

[DBCooper]

[quote]pat wrote:
Warrantless searches are completely unconstitutional.
The price of a free society is some crazies are going to do some appalling shit and no matter how many freedoms you swipe, it’s not going to stop determined people from doing horrible things to others. It’s a fact of life these days that nuts live among us and there are a multitude of reasons for it. But we cannot just search and harass people, because they may possibly be a threat. The slippery slope is enormous.
Over reactions are to be expected, but the checks and balances of the system we have in place are in place to stop impulsive reactions to horrible shit. Hopefully they work.
[/quote]

Allow me to play devil’s advocate. If warrantless search and seizures are a slippery slope, what about the opposite? If we go about our lives under the assumption that there are some wackos out there who can’t be stopped, so why bother trying to stop them, isn’t that a slippery slope as well?

If overreacting is a slippery slope, isn’t the idea of underreacting also a slippery slope?

[DBCooper]

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.

[JR249]

[quote]pat wrote:
Warrantless searches are completely unconstitutional.
[/quote]

Based on what premise?

The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and I say that as more of a strict constructionist than not. I am not advocating widespread, tacit endorsement of warrantless searches, BUT no other rights in the Constitution exist without some recognized circumstances whereby limits are necessary in extenuating circumstances. Why should the Fourth Amendment be any different?

If the Constitution means whatever the judicial branch interprets it to mean, then certain exceptions apply whereby warrantless searches are constitutional. Obviously the judicial branch has demonstrated a willingness to not unnecessarily impede law enforcement in protecting the public’s safety to an extreme whereby that safety is threatened more by preserving the rights of the criminal element than by allowing reasonable exceptions necessary to carry out the functions and duties of law enforcement.

[SexMachine]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want.

[/quote]

It’s a silly argument but not for the reasons you say. It’s a silly argument because once you have blown your brains out you’re obviously not going to be subject to any earthly law.

It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Not this shit again. Look, a man can’t marry a man because that’s not what marriage is. Just like I can’t fly a car, I can’t marry a man. Who the hell are you to change the definition of marriage? You think society comprises guinea pigs for you to fuck around with?

[DBCooper]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want.

[/quote]

It’s a silly argument but not for the reasons you say. It’s a silly argument because once you have blown your brains out you’re obviously not going to be subject to any earthly law.

It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Not this shit again. Look, a man can’t marry a man because that’s not what marriage is. Just like I can’t fly a car, I can’t marry a man. Who the hell are you to change the definition of marriage? You think society comprises guinea pigs for you to fuck around with?
[/quote]

I’m fine with the definition of marriage as being strictly between a man and a woman. Just don’t withhold certain rights and privileges from some people because they cannot marry within the current definition of the word. If civil unions had ALL of the same legal privileges and so forth that marriage had, I’d be fine with a ban on gay marriage.

But I think we have already altered the definition of the word. And since marriage is a social construct, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for society to alter the definition of the word. Marriage is a religious institution, but the fact that the state can marry any consenting man/woman anyways, and the state is not a religious institution at all.

[cwill1973]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?

[Bismark]

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.[/quote]

Suicide and murder are not the same thing.

[JR249]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.[/quote],

Personally, I think abortion is a poor analogy to use in such an example. The line of reasoning is only valid insofar as the right of the woman to choose what to do with her own body, but the pro-life crowd predicates its arguments on the belief that a human has a right to life at some point post-conception (where and when the right to “life” begins is another debate), while said right to life is coterminous with a point in time whereby it is legally permissible to terminate the pregnancy on the part of the mother.

Consequently, allowing the mother to do as she wishes with her own body conflicts with the right of the unborn to life, so in granting that pro-choice argument some form of legitimacy, whether or not we agree with it, there would be another person affected.

[SexMachine]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want.

[/quote]

It’s a silly argument but not for the reasons you say. It’s a silly argument because once you have blown your brains out you’re obviously not going to be subject to any earthly law.

It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Not this shit again. Look, a man can’t marry a man because that’s not what marriage is. Just like I can’t fly a car, I can’t marry a man. Who the hell are you to change the definition of marriage? You think society comprises guinea pigs for you to fuck around with?
[/quote]

I’m fine with the definition of marriage as being strictly between a man and a woman. Just don’t withhold certain rights and privileges from some people because they cannot marry within the current definition of the word. If civil unions had ALL of the same legal privileges and so forth that marriage had, I’d be fine with a ban on gay marriage.

But I think we have already altered the definition of the word. And since marriage is a social construct, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for society to alter the definition of the word. Marriage is a religious institution, but the fact that the state can marry any consenting man/woman anyways, and the state is not a religious institution at all.
[/quote]

I don’t have any problem with civil unions and gays having the same rights as married couples. But I’m not really sure what rights they currently don’t have. They can nominate their partner for hospital visitation and leave them their assets to them in their will etc.

[JR249]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t have any problem with civil unions and gays having the same rights as married couples. But I’m not really sure what rights they currently don’t have. They can nominate their partner for hospital visitation and leave them their assets to them in their will etc.
[/quote]

This varies by state. Some allow for basically none of these rights unless a couple is legally married, in which case said rights are unattainable for gay couples if there is no legal provision for marriage or civil union, e.g., Louisiana or Alabama, where state constitutions expressly forbid same-sex marriage AND some or all same-sex unions. As an aside, the overturn of DOMA in the Windsor case only impacted federal law.

[SexMachine]

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t have any problem with civil unions and gays having the same rights as married couples. But I’m not really sure what rights they currently don’t have. They can nominate their partner for hospital visitation and leave them their assets to them in their will etc.
[/quote]

This varies by state. Some allow for basically none of these rights unless a couple is legally married, in which case said rights are unattainable for gay couples if there is no legal provision for marriage or civil union, e.g., Louisiana or Alabama, where state constitutions expressly forbid same-sex marriage AND some or all same-sex unions. As an aside, the overturn of DOMA in the Windsor case only impacted federal law.[/quote]

But you can leave your assets to whoever you want in your will. You can also tell the hospital who you want to be able to visit you.

[JR249]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But you can leave your assets to whoever you want in your will. You can also tell the hospital who you want to be able to visit you.[/quote]

Yes, but the bigger legal problem pertained to tangible benefits, e.g., social security benefits, health insurance, estate taxes, or pensions, and also to the fact that if a person was somehow incapacitated, even some of the above functions (e.g., power of attorney) are not recognized under civil unions if a couple travels out of state. Finally, as argued in legal challenges, no federal protections are/were included with a civil union.

It’s the emergency situations where people need them most that shine the light on how the rights of those in domestic partnerships or sex-sex unions are not legally treated the same as those of a marriage, especially anywhere outside of the state that recognizes said partnerships or unions. There were also state-level cases where hospital visitation, if a person was incapacitated, were indeed problematic and legally treated differently as far as a spouse’s versus a partner’s rights were concerned.

[SexMachine]

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But you can leave your assets to whoever you want in your will. You can also tell the hospital who you want to be able to visit you.[/quote]

Yes, but the bigger legal problem pertained to tangible benefits, e.g., social security benefits, health insurance, estate taxes, or pensions, and also to the fact that if a person was somehow incapacitated, even some of the above functions (e.g., power of attorney) are not recognized under civil unions if a couple travels out of state. Finally, as argued in legal challenges, no federal protections are/were included with a civil union.

It’s the emergency situations where people need them most that shine the light on how the rights of those in domestic partnerships or sex-sex unions are not legally treated the same as those of a marriage, especially anywhere outside of the state that recognizes said partnerships or unions. There were also state-level cases where hospital visitation, if a person was incapacitated, were indeed problematic and legally treated differently as far as a spouse’s versus a partner’s rights were concerned.[/quote]

Fair enough. I don’t have a problem with granting any of those rights to gay couples.

[DBCooper]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.[/quote]

Suicide and murder are not the same thing. [/quote]

Uh, yes they are. Both are defined as an unlawful killing. The only difference is who you unlawfully kill, which isn’t really much of a distinction at all.

[DBCooper]

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

The exact same reasoning is used by women who support the right to abort. And since you don’t support abortion, all you’re left doing is trying to justify why one murder is okay and another is not. Is that for you to decide, when the killing of someone is okay and when it isn’t? How fucking pompous of you.

[SexMachine]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.[/quote]

Suicide and murder are not the same thing. [/quote]

Uh, yes they are. Both are defined as an unlawful killing. The only difference is who you unlawfully kill, which isn’t really much of a distinction at all.[/quote]

Not sure what the fact that they share a legal term has to do with the moral and ethical difference between suicide and homicide - two crimes considered completely incomparable by the law and the population in general.

[DBCooper]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.[/quote]

Suicide and murder are not the same thing. [/quote]

Uh, yes they are. Both are defined as an unlawful killing. The only difference is who you unlawfully kill, which isn’t really much of a distinction at all.[/quote]

Not sure what the fact that they share a legal term has to do with the moral and ethical difference between suicide and homicide - two crimes considered completely incomparable by the law and the population in general.
[/quote]

Actually, the two crimes have been considered, in the western world anyways, to be very comparable. Perhaps the punishments are not comparable, but both have been punished within the bounds of the law for centuries.

And again, we are still talking about the unlawful killing of a human being. Is it really all that different if you kill yourself versus killing someone else? Is that what you’re arguing, that certain killings are okay, but others aren’t? Who makes that distinction, you?

Are you arguing that there is something moral about suicide? Honorable?

[SexMachine]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Actually, the two crimes have been considered, in the western world anyways, to be very comparable. Perhaps the punishments are not comparable, but both have been punished within the bounds of the law for centuries.

[/quote]

Historically suicide was considered a heinous act in Christian countries. However in many other countries it wasn’t - ie Japan, China and India in particular come to mind. In modern times authorities don’t even seek punishment for attempted suicide. They just send the person to a psychiatrist. Murderers by contrast are likely to get life imprisonment and maybe even the death penalty. This reflects society’s belief in general that suicide is not morally comparable to homicide.

And again, we are still talking about the unlawful killing of a human being. Is it really all that different if you kill yourself versus killing someone else? Is that what you’re arguing, that certain killings are okay, but others aren’t? Who makes that distinction, you?

I didn’t say suicide is okay. I said it’s not morally comparable to homicide.

[quote]

Are you arguing that there is something moral about suicide? Honorable?[/quote]

Of course not. And nothing I said could possibly be interpreted as such.