|
|
| |
| |
jeline@myway.com (Synette Jeline) wrote in news:940dff85.0402121456.31cd6fe8
@posting.google.com:
A bill that would effectively outlaw most abortion in that state has
passed the House in South Dakota. The bill passed after dozens of
women testified to the House State Affairs Committee to the disaster
abortion had caused in their lives. Women had spoken of being haunted
by emotional agony and lingering shame years after having abortions.
Some recounted suicide attempts and legislators were told of others
who had killed themselves.
The bill passed by a wide majority, 45-15.
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/7886050.htm
The bill would punish those who perform abortions with up to five
years in prison and $5,000 fines.
My comment: Although this is welcome news for those who are trying to
save babies from the baby execution chambers (called "abortion
clinics") in each state, and welcome news for those who are trying to
protect mothers from destroying the quality of their lives, it is
still just the beginning. The bill itself has not been passed yet, and
we still have to ban abortion at the federal level.
i am curious: could something like this hold up? i am crossposting to a few
legal groups to see what the opinion is.
|
| |
| |
jeline@myway.com (Synette Jeline) wrote in
news:940dff85.0402121456.31cd6fe8
@posting.google.com:
i am curious: could something like this hold up?
NOPE. Roe v. Wade and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. A
state's laws or court rulings to the contrary are null and void. That, of
course, doesn't mean goofy state legislatures or state judges don't try it
from time to time.
i am crossposting to a few
legal groups to see what the opinion is.
|
| |
| |
" jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:VUVWb.60191$uS3.3155@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
news:940dff85.0402121456.31cd6fe8
NOPE. Roe v. Wade and the Constitution are the supreme law of the
land. A state's laws or court rulings to the contrary are null and
void. That, of course, doesn't mean goofy state legislatures or state
judges don't try it from time to time.
that's what i thought.
it's surprising that people who could support such misogynist legislation
could live in the inited states.
|
| |
| |
On 13 Feb 2004 02:00:19 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
" jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:VUVWb.60191$uS3.3155@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
that's what i thought.
it's surprising that people who could support such misogynist legislation
could live in the inited states.
We're still quite sure that Bobby lives in the US, right?
---
"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
Albert Einstein
|
| |
| |
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
jeline@myway.com (Synette Jeline) wrote in
news:940dff85.0402121456.31cd6fe8 @posting.google.com:
A bill that would effectively outlaw most abortion in that state has
passed the House in South Dakota. The bill passed after dozens of
women testified to the House State Affairs Committee to the disaster
abortion had caused in their lives. Women had spoken of being haunted
by emotional agony and lingering shame years after having abortions.
Some recounted suicide attempts and legislators were told of others
who had killed themselves.
The bill passed by a wide majority, 45-15.
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/7886050.htm
The bill would punish those who perform abortions with up to five
years in prison and $5,000 fines.
My comment: Although this is welcome news for those who are trying to
save babies from the baby execution chambers (called "abortion
clinics") in each state, and welcome news for those who are trying to
protect mothers from destroying the quality of their lives, it is
still just the beginning. The bill itself has not been passed yet, and
we still have to ban abortion at the federal level.
i am curious: could something like this hold up? i am crossposting to a
few legal groups to see what the opinion is.
Yes.
Because the law is aimed at anyone who performs the act.
Roe V Wade came about because prosecutors were illegally and
unconstitutionally prosecuting doctors for performing abortions after the
anti-abortionists made a royal fuss over the issue.
When a movie depicting the truth about the case was released, the
anit-abortion groups rallied to have the movie quashed because it would
prove that the anti-abortionists were wrong with the whole issue.
In one scene of the movie, they made a withdrawal motion based on the fact
"Roe" had died.
The Supreme Court justice asked, "Can we not assume that there are other
women in the same predictament as Roe?"
In Haamilton County Ohio [Cincinnati], the prosecutor literally charged any
doctor or person with some trumped up charges for even considering an
abortion, even though doing so was legal in Ohio at the time.
It was not the act of the abortion itself that "Roe V Wade" was all about,
it was about the fact prosecutors were taking people to court illegally over
an abortion.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:30:24 -0500, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>
wrote, in part:
i am curious: could something like this hold up?
NOPE. Roe v. Wade and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. A
state's laws or court rulings to the contrary are null and void. That, of
course, doesn't mean goofy state legislatures or state judges don't try it
from time to time.
The Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land. However, once
someone is prosecuted under this law, even if the state courts respect
_stare decisis_ and refuse to convict defendants, the state may
attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court, which may choose to reverse
itself.
The police, of course, are not there to judge the constiutionality of
laws: they simply enforce the statutes that the legislature, and the
state's attorney general, tell them to enforce. Hence, arrests of
abortionists in South Dakota could indeed take place. The availability
of this particular "reproductive health service" in that state,
therefore, depends on the willingness of doctors to serve as test
cases.
That is "all" that the new law in South Dakota means - that the
Supreme Court is given an opportunity to change its mind, and "repeal"
the Roe vs Wade decision. Naturally, the other half of the equation
belongs to Bush - and Reagan and Bush senior - having appointed
suitable candidates to the Supreme Court.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
|
| |
| |
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
jeline@myway.com (Synette Jeline) wrote in news:940dff85.0402121456.31cd6fe8
@posting.google.com:
i am curious: could something like this hold up? i am crossposting to a few
legal groups to see what the opinion is.
I wonder of the state of South Dakota could be found in contempt
of the US Supreme Court....
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:30:24 -0500, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>
wrote, in part:
i am curious: could something like this hold up?
The Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land. However, once
someone is prosecuted under this law, even if the state courts respect
_stare decisis_ and refuse to convict defendants, the state may
attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court, which may choose to reverse
itself.
The police, of course, are not there to judge the constiutionality of
laws: they simply enforce the statutes that the legislature, and the
state's attorney general, tell them to enforce. Hence, arrests of
abortionists in South Dakota could indeed take place.
Well... EXCEPT that, _THE_INSTANT_ such a Glaringly Stare Decisis
Unconstitutional Law were enacted, the SD ACLU... if there is one... or the
National ACLU would Enjoin Its Enforcement... that is, for all of you who
are Less Conversant With Legalese, the ACLU will Instantly Apply to the
Federal District Court for SD [8th?] for some flavor of Emergency Protective
Order *Prohibiting* the State of South Dakota from Enforcing its
Newly-Created Law until Review in the Federal Courts...
The availability
of this particular "reproductive health service" in that state,
therefore, depends on the willingness of doctors to serve as test
cases.
IF there are in fact any Women's Health Practitioners in SD, they need
only look to Neighboring Nebraska for Reassurance that they can serve as
"Test Cases" without Suffering Ill Effect... can't remember his name This
Instant, but he was the "Partial-Birth" Doctor who Successfully Challenged
Nebraska's Newly-Created "Test Case" Law...
That is "all" that the new law in South Dakota means - that the
Supreme Court is given an opportunity to change its mind, and "repeal"
the Roe vs Wade decision.
That is, IF it Survives Serveral Levels of Intermediate Appeal...
Naturally, the other half of the equation
belongs to Bush - and Reagan and Bush senior - having appointed
suitable candidates to the Supreme Court.
Naturally...
But on the Brighter Side... My Money Bets that his Fraudulency Follows In
Daddy's Shit Trail...
John Savard
Naughtius "Maybe There's Something To ""Buffalo Commons"" Maximus
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in
news:402D1196.94E56906@sprintmail.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
I wonder of the state of South Dakota could be found in contempt
of the US Supreme Court....
it will be an interesting debate for fundies and conservatives. if they argue
states rights, then they'll endorse gay marriages. hmmm.
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote
[ > > Someone wrote: ]
She has the duty to care for an invited guest- the foetus.
No, she does not. She is not a slave. Involuntary servitude is
illegal.
If you invite a guest,
That's an interesting tidbit.
Completely irrelevant, of course, since the fetus is obviously not an
invited guest, but still interesting.
There is no agreement. In fact, the notion that a woman makes an
agreement with a party that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST is stupid.
It does exist, moron- she and her partner have conspired to produce
a third party-
How can this third party exist if she and her partner have yet to pro-
duce it?
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury "Would you mind having a little
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com consideration for others?"
--golddodgearies
|
| |
| |
"Matt Pillsbury" <mtp@seesig.com> wrote
Completely irrelevant, of course, since the fetus is obviously not an
invited guest, but still interesting.
The foetus is certainly an invited guest- and a contract made in concert
with another person to boot. She certainly can't conceive on her own, it's a
partnership decision.
How can this third party exist if she and her partner have yet to pro-
duce it?
The party already exists, and if unhindered, comes to partum. At that time,
the mother's partner comes into responsibility for the next eighteen years.
Unless you believe she conceives by parthogenesis or some such, it's a two
party decision to conceive at all.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Chas <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:
"Matt Pillsbury" <mtp@seesig.com> wrote
The foetus is certainly an invited guest- and a contract made in concert
with another person to boot.
How does that work? At the time the woman has sex the fetus doesn't
exist and so no contract can be entered into. Further, no contract
can require physical servitude. All such contracts are automatically
void.
How can this third party exist if she and her partner have yet to pro-
duce it?
The party already exists, and if unhindered, comes to partum.
So you think that women get pregnant _before_ they have sex?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> writes:
"Matt Pillsbury" <mtp@seesig.com> wrote
Completely irrelevant, of course, since the fetus is obviously not
an invited guest, but still interesting.
The foetus is certainly an invited guest-
Obviously not. A woman can get pregnant after being raped, or if her
contraception fails. Hence, any "invitation" is irrelevant to the
presence of the "guest".
[...]
How can this third party exist if she and her partner have yet to
produce it?
The party already exists,
Absurd. The action that you claim "invite" the fetus takes place
before the fetus exists.
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com
|
| |
| |
"Matt Pillsbury" <mtp@seesig.com> wrote
The foetus is certainly an invited guest-
Obviously not. A woman can get pregnant after being raped, or if her
contraception fails. Hence, any "invitation" is irrelevant to the
presence of the "guest".
She's a mammal- it's the way things are done.
Have someone fill you in.
Absurd. The action that you claim "invite" the fetus takes place
before the fetus exists.
Intent follows the bullet- it isn't a solitary act with no involved actors.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> writes:
"Matt Pillsbury" <mtp@seesig.com> wrote
The foetus is certainly an invited guest-
Obviously not. A woman can get pregnant after being raped, or if
her contraception fails. Hence, any "invitation" is irrelevant to
the presence of the "guest".
She's a mammal- it's the way things are done.
So she can takes no action to invite the fetus in, or she can even
take actions designed to keep the fetus *out*, and she's still invited
it in?
That's absurd, not to mention completely contrary to the notion of
invitation in the first place.
[...]
Absurd. The action that you claim "invite" the fetus takes place
before the fetus exists.
Intent follows the bullet-
Sex isn't a wrongful act (believe me, you really don't want sex to be
a wrongful act, or the results will be even stupider than what you've
outlined so far), so why should the doctrine of transferred intent
apply?
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com
|
| |
| |
In talk.abortion, Matt Pillsbury
<mtp@seesig.com>
wrote
on 15 Feb 2004 23:31:35 -0800
<m2znbjwkdk.fsf@seesig.com>:
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> writes:
The foetus is certainly an invited guest-
Obviously not. A woman can get pregnant after being raped, or if
her contraception fails. Hence, any "invitation" is irrelevant to
the presence of the "guest".
So she can takes no action to invite the fetus in, or she can even
take actions designed to keep the fetus *out*, and she's still invited
it in?
That's absurd, not to mention completely contrary to the notion of
invitation in the first place.
[...]
Absurd. The action that you claim "invite" the fetus takes place
before the fetus exists.
Sex isn't a wrongful act (believe me, you really don't want sex to be
a wrongful act, or the results will be even stupider than what you've
outlined so far), so why should the doctrine of transferred intent
apply?
Sex already is considered a wrongful act (presumably
decreed so by various churches in the 16th through 19th
century, and even earlier, if one believes the Bible);
it's only recently that it is losing its wrongness. It's a
pity, for it's really designed (if one can use such a term
in an evolutionary context) to give a lot of pleasure
to the two copulating, if done right; presumably that's
Nature's barbed bribe at work to get species to reproduce,
with pregnancy being a side effect. (Human women are one
of the few species on the planet who can orgasm, presumably
to pique his interest, and then peak their ecstasy.)
Of course there are excesses; Madonna comes to mind as
the forefront of a sexual revolution -- although in all
fairness the revolution might have happened more than 20
years before, to have sex when one wants with whomever one
wants, but also recognizing that a woman is an equal in all
respects, save one: the ability to give birth to children.
Were some to have their way, sex would only be used for
reproduction and only during attempts at reproduction,
and only between two lawfully (and religiously) joined
individuals -- male and female. Presumably, it's this
element, or the vestiges thereof, who are fighting such
things as:
[1] gay marriage.
[2] sex before marriage.
[3] schooling of women (presumably so that she'll be
more accepting of incompetent male behavior,
not knowing any better).
[4] abortion.
Not that such draconian strictures would fly, mind you;
it turns out Victorian-era lads and lasses, or men and
maidens, lunks and ladies, or even dowagers and dudes,
were just as randy as modern-day man, but wore more
clothing and were more discreet about it.
Personally, I'm not sure of the wisdom of a 40+-year-old
woman pursuing a teenage boy, or a 60+-year-old-man
wedding a young woman. But both have happened, and will
probably happen again. I wouldn't mind the latter too
much but I'm not sure I'd be able to garner much interest
unless I'm able to hold a conversation with her, and she's
able to converse with me. Social, as opposed to sexual,
intercourse. But I'm not 60 yet. :-)
(There's even a tuning parameter of sorts, if I understand
certain research correctly. The older man is more likely
to sire sons; the older woman to beget daughters from
her younger lover. Since sex is a function of sperm that's
easy to "tune" in the testicles, although I'm not sure of
the actual genetic details.)
The interesting thing is that we're deluding ourselves --
or, I should say, a significant fraction of the populace is
doing so, but I think we're all affected by the results.
Even I celebrate Christmas, for example, with the giving
of presents -- although I don't go to Christmas services,
or any church for that matter except for voting (which is
where they put the voting booths in the last election --
they need to be put somewhere :-) ). For better or for
worse, many in the populace believe in a deity, a deity
which wants everyone to stop sinning and be whatever the
priests sermonize on this week. This appears to be an
aspect of socialization, but can of course lead to all
sorts of silliness, one of them being a prohibition on
life-saving medical care for children.
Born children, I should add. There's at least one
case where a child died because his or her parents
employed traditional techniques (such as exorcism)
as opposed to proper medical care.
Obviously this is all rather far afield of abortion but
the context is interesting on occasion, too.
Is she inviting something when she spreads her legs
with an aroused male nearby? All sorts of things, actually:
[1] the possibility of sex
[2] the possibility of pregnancy
[3] the possibility of disease
[4] the possibility of confrontation with her lover's wife,
if he's married
[5] the possibility of her lover confronting her husband,
if she's married
etc.
But they are only possibilities, not certainties.
(The man might be sleeping, having a nightly erection,
[required for the continued health of one's dongle]
for example, not desiring sex at that moment. Or
perhaps she's spreading her legs because he's
grabbed them.)
[...]
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
|
| |
| |
|
