doG

Right? The religious are free to belief whatever they want but they DO NOT have RIGHT to expect anyone else to conform to their beliefs. As an example, Scientologists have a right to believe Xenu visited Earth and brought billions of people here on spaceships and I have the right to believe that Scientology is effectively a mental disorder. The church can believe whatever definition they want regarding 'marriage' but they have absolutely no right to expect me to conform to their belief.

Strawman. The word "marriage" is not defined in the California Constitution. The purpose of Prop. 8 was to revise the Constitution by adding a section that declared only marriages between a man and woman would be recognized in California.

You might take a look at TTCalc if you're looking for the functionality offered in a programmable calculator. It has an array of built in functions and the functionality to define your own variables and functions. It's also an open source project written in C++ so you could even modify it if you wanted.

Nmap's a good Linux tool that's been ported to windoze....

Can you prove the origin of the word as religious? I cited the known etymology of the word earlier. Can you prove otherwise? What exactly do you mean by "religiously charged word" anyhow? What is unconstitutional is letting "religion" have any bearing on legislation written. Legislation is about writing law and religious concerns have no legitimate place in that process.

That's a two way street. If there's not a good reason not to then why shouldn't we? Why should any us bow to the authority of the church? Let them choose a new word.

Does religion somehow have a patent or ownership of the word? Why should I even care what religion thinks? We are talking about law here and religion HAS NO PLACE in any laws of the United States. If religion is concerned about what meaning the word has among the non-religious then let it come up with it's own term. As it is now many non-religious marriages take place officiated by Justices of the Peace, Ship Captains, Tribal Elders and other non-religious officials so religion can back off on calling any explicit authority over the definition of marriage.

Even if deposing a vicious dictator was wrong, two wrongs would not make a right. Our debt is out of order and should be paid down before we buy expensive conveniences we really can't afford. At some point we need to sort out our needs from our wants and let the wants wait until we've paid for our needs. Sometimes it hurts to be responsible but it is the right thing to do.

And just who do you think should pay for it? Don't you think our kids, grand kids, great grand kids, great great grand kids, etc. are deep enough in debt already?

Actually that would be handled by the runtime interpreter, not VB itself....

Kant/Kash and Fortran come to mind when I imagine the logistics of implementing such a math procedure. Even C offers much more functionality than VB.

While there is some truth to this it's important to point out where these people really stand. Obama, Biden and Clinton are opposed to gay marriage but do favor civil unions. Sharpton and Jackson are opposed to both gay marriage and bans against gay marriage and have made statements against Prop. 8. Napiltano is also opposed to gay marriage and she is also against any amendment to the federal Constitution that would ban it. IMO it would be difficult to find people among the liberal set that are as vehemently against gay marriage as the religious right.

Which people? All of them or just the tyrants among them?

I use a personal wiki....

I didn't ask you about your position on the subject as a whole, only about raped women that get pregnant. FWIW raped women that get pregnant represent 100% of the raped women that get pregnant, not some insignificant value. What is your position regarding this specific group? What do you think about their rights?

And, if that's the case then that is what the representatives of the people should write into law. It is my opinion that the law should ultimately determine whose rights are whose and not the courts. For that to happen requires that the people engage each other on this issue and communicate their desires to their representatives so that they may do their jobs instead of the courts doing it for them.

No. The pill and intrauterine devices would prevent a fertilized egg. They only extended rights to the egg after it is fertilized, not before.

Hmmm....what I think. I generally believe that life does begin before birth and I think Samuel's story moves many to agree with that. I am not particularly fixated on a particular point in time so I am interested in the opinion of others. I try to see all points of view and therefore play devil's advocate against many to highlight aspects that I think should be considered in the debate. I do not believe in forcing a woman that has been raped to further forfeit her rights by being forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. At the same time I do believe children in the womb are deserving of some rights and I'm interested in finding out what others think. Ultimately I believe it is an issue that should be decided by the representative branch of the people and not the judicial branch which, should be limited to interpreting law. As such I believe there is ultimately a greater agreement to be reached by bringing the topic up for discussion and bringing up valid points of opposition to get more people to consider all points of view and not just their own so that their representatives might do so as well. BTW, I also believe that man will ultimately be faced with population control if our species is to endure. At some point in the future our population will exceed the resources that our planet can provide and we will have to control our population or die. You think world poverty is bad now just wait and see what it looks like at double or triple the current population of the world

You do realize that none of this answered the question that was asked. I'll rephrase it in case there was a misunderstanding. The proposed legislation would give a fertilized egg the same rights as a born human, including those fertilized eggs which occur as a result of rape. Should the women hosting them be allowed to abort these fertilized eggs with the MOrning After Pill in spite of the rights conveyed to those eggs under the proposed legislation?

Like this one? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Should rape victims be able to take the "Morning After Pill"?

according to North Dakota's House of Representatives: Thoughts?

Have you read the Wiki Article on it?

Not really. Theists by definition have an affirmative belief in the existence of God(s). A·theists are not·theist by definition. You are in the circle of believers or you're not. To simply doubt the existence of God(s) makes one atheist.

For me it's a toss up between hydrofluoric acid and ammonium perchlorate....

I understand very well what happened. 2 of my posts that were not part of that off topic discussion were deleted as well and I'd like to know why?