- May 14, 2015
- 9,781
- 4,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court
- Thread starter 98cwitr
- Start date
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,323
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Siamese twins can only be separated with the consent of both twins (assuming they're adults), or, in the case of babies, the consent of the parents... and for good reason.
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,323
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
If you're referring to the OP, I think Biden agrees. I think he's against the idea, but the progressives (who helped him get elected) are for it.
So... he'll form a commission (which is bipartisan, so it'll almost certainly say "no") and he'll have a graceful way out... after all, one of the many improvements he has over his predecessor is that he actually listens to experts, right?
Upvote
0
JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 2,440
- 1,569
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I was confused by what you meant by this. Now, later on you posted this:
So this indicates what you meant was that you thought it was a really bad point and didn't need to read further. If so, I'm a bit saddened, given that I viewed the bit about the Siamese twins as more of a side point that I just wanted to get out of the way before I proceeded to what I viewed as the more pertinent arguments--the claim was made that "in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?" and Siamese twins seemed like such a situation so I brought it up. And anyway NxNw subsequently said that he did think a Siamese twin had a constitutional right to force the other to undergo an operation to split them up, even if it would be a guaranteed death of the other, at least demonstrating he was taking his view to its logical conclusion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 23,340
- 14,380
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Using conjoined twins though means that the one who would live would have to be such a complete monster to consider exercising the “right”, and since it’s not ever going to be likely that this would ever get into a courtroom (let alone an operation room), NxNW’s standing by this “right” is cheapened because of the unlikeness of the hypothetical ever coming up in real life.
(A “trolley problem” scenario has a 400 pound person next to you, who would block the tracks, if you pushed them.
This disregards the fact that a 120 pound person trying to push a 400 pound person will just get a stare, because do you know who is capable of moving a 400 pound person?
The 400 pound person.)
You have to find a new one; conjoined twins isn’t a good hypothetical.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 2,440
- 1,569
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Well, what was asked was "in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?" This was, as far as I could tell, claiming that there aren't other situations where someone can be unwillingly "attached" to someone in the same way as pregnancy... but a Siamese twin is indeed attached in a rather similar fashion. That was my point.
If I had known that what I regarded as a minor point would be getting this kind of attention, I probably wouldn't have even brought it up, or would've at least rephrased it considerably.
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 23,340
- 14,380
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Oh, I get that it was a debating tool, (and served it’s purpose, getting @NxNW to confirm his stance), so it was effective in that regard. It just struck me as “loose”.
It’s not you, it’s me.
Upvote
0
NxNW
Well-Known Member
It was not all that relevant, because it isn't a case of someone attaching themselves to another, since they were formed that way. There was never a time when they were not attached.
Here's another example, taken from (I think) Law & Order. Someone has their kidney forcibly removed, which is then transplanted into someone who would have died otherwise. The recipient didn't know where the kidney came from, only that there was a 'donor'. When the facts came to light and offenders went to jail, the episode ends with the victim remarking that he wishes he could have is kidney back.
Seems to me that he should be able to demand that it be removed from the recipient, assuming it could be reattached. It's not his problem that the recipient will die. Let's take it one step further than the episode: imagine that the victim's sole remaining kidney begins to fail, or is damaged in an accident. Should the recipient of the stolen kidney then be forced to give it back? Why does the recipient of the stolen kidney have more of a claim than the rightful owner, if both need it and both will die without it?
Upvote
0
Say it aint so
Well-Known Member
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,021
- 3,412
- 27
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
I have never been an advocate of expanding the court.
But given this courts green lighting race based gerrymandering and profiling based on race, maybe it's time.
But given this courts green lighting race based gerrymandering and profiling based on race, maybe it's time.
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 41,991
- 17,014
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I hope I'm alive long enough to experience Roberts' "legacy" be trashed by historians worldwide. Occasionally (mostly when it doesn't change the decision) he will vote with the minority, but he is someone who tries to talk the talk but "walks the walk all the way to unscrupulous dictatorship."
The Federalist Society sure got their money's worth out of indoctrinating 6 conservative judges. I thought Coney-Barrett might be a little bit better, but there's no angel whispering in her ear when she agrees with the majority.
The Federalist Society sure got their money's worth out of indoctrinating 6 conservative judges. I thought Coney-Barrett might be a little bit better, but there's no angel whispering in her ear when she agrees with the majority.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
