PDA

View Full Version : Rights of the Fetus


NewChief
06-14-2006, 09:45 PM
An interesting dynamic is surfacing in Arkansas. We're pretty dominated by the Pro-Life crowd, which is fine and dandy. Our governor is also on a children's health/anti-obesity/make-kids-health-nuts crusade, also fine and dandy. Now the two are mixing. He's kicking around legislation making it a crime to smoke while pregnant. There's also talk of pushing legislation to make it a crime to drink alcohol while pregnant.

This is interesting because many of the Pro-Life/Fetal Rights crowd are also the "government better not tell me I can't smoke" crowd. Conversely, many of the anti-smoking crowd are also of the "don't tell a woman what she can do with her body" ilk, so it could be an interesting conflict with even more interesting bedfellows as this enter's public debate.

Thoughts?

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2006, 10:10 PM
Drinking and/or smoking while pregnant is about the dumbest, most selfish act I can imagine. Should it be illegal? Probably.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:17 PM
most people's experience has been that drinking and smoking did not appear to affect babies that they knew...

while potentially harmful to the fetus, it shouldn't be illegal...

this whole idea of controlling a woman's reproductive/sex life has always been bothersome to me...

now they want to control their personal habits as well?

i don't know, maybe that's taking it too far...

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:16 PM
An interesting dynamic is surfacing in Arkansas. We're pretty dominated by the Pro-Life crowd, which is fine and dandy. Our governor is also on a children's health/anti-obesity/make-kids-health-nuts crusade, also fine and dandy. Now the two are mixing. He's kicking around legislation making it a crime to smoke while pregnant. There's also talk of pushing legislation to make it a crime to drink alcohol while pregnant.

This is interesting because many of the Pro-Life/Fetal Rights crowd are also the "government better not tell me I can't smoke" crowd. Conversely, many of the anti-smoking crowd are also of the "don't tell a woman what she can do with her body" ilk, so it could be an interesting conflict with even more interesting bedfellows as this enter's public debate.

Thoughts?
It's a good political tactic for establishing the legal framework for banning abortion through the courts. Pretty soon the Republicans will be cheering the term "activist judges".

That said, it's no doubt a very effective tool and an interesting topic for discussion for exactly the reasons you point out.

patteeu
06-14-2006, 11:41 PM
It's a good political tactic for establishing the legal framework for banning abortion through the courts. Pretty soon the Republicans will be cheering the term "activist judges".

That said, it's no doubt a very effective tool and an interesting topic for discussion for exactly the reasons you point out.

Huh? I don't get it.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 12:03 AM
just cheer "activist judges" and click your heels...

or is it kick your heels?

or kick up your heels?

or be on your heels?

i should probably stop this now...

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:17 AM
Huh? I don't get it.
What do you mean?

SBK
06-15-2006, 12:40 AM
It's a good political tactic for establishing the legal framework for banning abortion through the courts. Pretty soon the Republicans will be cheering the term "activist judges".

That said, it's no doubt a very effective tool and an interesting topic for discussion for exactly the reasons you point out.

Buddy, folks on the right don't want activist judges of either stripe. We want the laws written by the branches that are allowed to do that, and by votes of the people, not by some wacko judge.

But this is an interesting debate. I am against killing babies, which I guess would mean that I am for this law. I do have trouble bringing myself to say that we should make the law though, because that's too much big brother.

Maybe a compromise is that it's ok to smack a woman, only if she's pregnant and drinking or smoking? :hmmm:

BigMeatballDave
06-15-2006, 01:31 AM
He's kicking around legislation making it a crime to smoke while pregnant. There's also talk of pushing legislation to make it a crime to drink alcohol while pregnant. I'd like to see both of these become laws everywhere...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 04:35 AM
jAZ is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with the personal health of the fetus, and everything to do with a legal attempt to establish the fetus as a viable person from a legal standpoint so that a termination of a pregnancy can be considered tantamount to murder. It's a political move, it has nothing to do with what is right or necessary on either side.

Furthermore, I find it pretty goddamned funny that anyone who identifies as a Republican would say that they don't like activist judges of any stripe. Joe Scarborough, who can't exactly be considered a Kennedy Democrat, has stated that Republicans have no less problems with so-called "activist" judges than do democrats. When said judges overturn laws they don't like, you seldom hear bitching from the right wing of the political spectrum. Seldom as in never. A case study in hypocrisy.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 06:50 AM
What do you mean?

I don't get why you said, "[I]t's a good political tactic for establishing the legal framework for banning abortion through the courts." How so?

patteeu
06-15-2006, 07:06 AM
jAZ is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with the personal health of the fetus, and everything to do with a legal attempt to establish the fetus as a viable person from a legal standpoint so that a termination of a pregnancy can be considered tantamount to murder. It's a political move, it has nothing to do with what is right or necessary on either side.

This law would do nothing to establish the fetus as a viable person from a legal standpoint.

Furthermore, I find it pretty goddamned funny that anyone who identifies as a Republican would say that they don't like activist judges of any stripe. Joe Scarborough, who can't exactly be considered a Kennedy Democrat, has stated that Republicans have no less problems with so-called "activist" judges than do democrats. When said judges overturn laws they don't like, you seldom hear bitching from the right wing of the political spectrum. Seldom as in never. A case study in hypocrisy.

I find it funny that you think Joe Scarborough speaks for all conservatives. I'm sure some Republicans and some conservatives are OK with a little judicial activism of the right flavor, but I'm equally sure that there are plenty of conservatives who want as little of it as possible in either direction. The gray area here is that when it comes to statutes or the constitution, some level of interpretation is required and anyone who disagrees with that interpretation, no matter how reasonable, will see it as activism. But radical intepretations/re-interpretations can and should be avoided regardless of which side benefits from them.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 08:09 AM
This law would do nothing to establish the fetus as a viable person from a legal standpoint.



I find it funny that you think Joe Scarborough speaks for all conservatives. I'm sure some Republicans and some conservatives are OK with a little judicial activism of the right flavor, but I'm equally sure that there are plenty of conservatives who want as little of it as possible in either direction. The gray area here is that when it comes to statutes or the constitution, some level of interpretation is required and anyone who disagrees with that interpretation, no matter how reasonable, will see it as activism. But radical intepretations/re-interpretations can and should be avoided regardless of which side benefits from them.

I never said that Scarborough speaks for all conservatives. But he *is* a conservative, of which you are no doubt aware. The fact of the matter is that the existing administration and their sycophants love judicial activism, and I find it hard to deny such a claim.

Regarding your first (empty) point: You know good and well that this law is attempting to establish that a particular behavior is harmful for a given entity, and if it does so then you begin to establish personhood for that entity. If that does in fact happen, then existing statutes regarding the harming of another person would apply. Don't attempt and gloss over the patently obvious in order to strengthen the case of your political kin. I know you claim to be a libertarian, but I think we all know otherwise.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 08:14 AM
Libertarians are just as divided on abortion as are Democrats.
I believe it's about 48% against, amongst Democrats or around there.
The issue is controversial because it divides so closely around the 50% mark.
Seems to be among most groups too.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 08:31 AM
Assuming for the moment (perhaps incorrectly) that this isn't some anti-abortion ruse, what's the next step? Treating all women as "potentially pregnant" and prohibiting them from drinking or smoking at all during their childbearing years? How else can "we" protect in utero children that are yet unknown to their mothers? Would it matter if drinking and smoking were more harmful to the <2 month pregnancy than to the more advanced fetus?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 08:38 AM
Libertarians are just as divided on abortion as are Democrats.
I believe it's about 48% against, amongst Democrats or around there.
The issue is controversial because it divides so closely around the 50% mark.
Seems to be among most groups too.


Not according to this poll, conducted last year on democrats.org

http://www.democrats.com/node/6684

Weighted Results:

Pro-Life: 38 %
Pro-Choice: 56 %

('Weighted Average' means each state is weighted proportionally to its share of USA population. For example,
California, the most populated state, is given 71 times the weight of WY the least populated state, in a weighted avg.)
*************************************

Unweighted Results:

Pro-Life: 41 %
Pro-Choice: 54 %

('Unweighted Average' means each state is given equal weight; population density is not taken into account).

You are talking 13-18% of difference, and it could be safely assumed that remaining percentage would not be in favor of a judicial change to the status quo.

That's a big gap.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 08:42 AM
I read that is varies over time plus or minus 4 points.
Still, 38-41% is not minor either. Again, it is a poll too.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 08:47 AM
I read that is varies over time plus or minus 4 points.
Still, 38-41% is not minor either. Again, it is a poll too.

That is just a poll of how many dems are pro-life vs. pro-choice, which is still a large percentage in favor of pro-choice. If you conduct a poll of how the public views the overturning of Roe V. Wade it is overwhelmingly against it, which regardless of your views, shows the futility of an attempt to overturn this ruling. You are trying to argue when you are mentally nuthooked. Just give it up.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 09:11 AM
That is just a poll of how many dems are pro-life vs. pro-choice, which is still a large percentage in favor of pro-choice.

No kidding Capt Obvious.
But all I said was that it's not a minor amount.
It's "a" poll.

If you conduct a poll of how the public views the overturning of Roe V. Wade it is overwhelmingly against it, which regardless of your views, shows the futility of an attempt to overturn this ruling.
What are my views?
You probably don't even know.

If you are for what the people want, then how can you defend judges using the 14th Amendment to disregard state laws (reflects local values) especially using a case handled taken up by political activitists, using a woman ( McCorvey) who never even had an abortion, who lied for them and who admits this today?

The conservative view is to use the same precedent, using the 14th Amendment to overturn. That's doing no different than what the left did.
So where is this hypocrisy of which you speak?

The moderate view is that it gets determined by each state which reflects local values. Then you have competition between the states. What have you got to fear then?

BTW this view is Scalia's and was also Rhenquist's. I don't think it's Thomas'



You are trying to argue when you are mentally nuthooked. Just give it up.

Debating the poster and using ad hominem = intellectual bankruptcy.
And liberals complain about neocons? Must be projection huh?

banyon
06-15-2006, 09:35 AM
The fetus has the right to :distract us from the more important economic, foreign policy, environmental, and energy issues that will ultimately have a great deal more to do with our future.

Lurch
06-15-2006, 09:47 AM
The fetus has the right to :distract us from the more important economic, foreign policy, environmental, and energy issues that will ultimately have a great deal more to do with our future.
Yeah. Kinda like the Jewish problem distracted the Third Reich from more important concerns.

banyon
06-15-2006, 10:07 AM
Yeah. Kinda like the Jewish problem distracted the Third Reich from more important concerns.

Right

Pro Choice = Holocaust

:rolleyes:

Lurch
06-15-2006, 10:11 AM
Right

Pro Choice = Holocaust

:rolleyes:

More dead, actually. Glad you see the point.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 10:20 AM
I never said that Scarborough speaks for all conservatives. But he *is* a conservative, of which you are no doubt aware. The fact of the matter is that the existing administration and their sycophants love judicial activism, and I find it hard to deny such a claim.

I disagree. I don't think Joe Scarborough's opinion, whatever it is, can be extrapolated to "anyone who identifies as a Republican" nor to "the existing administration and their sycophants." Even if Joe Scarborough logged onto ChiefsPlanet right now and said he agreed with everything 'Hamas' Jenkins says on this subject it wouldn't amount to anything more than one guy agreeing with your otherwise unsupported assertion.

Regarding your first (empty) point: You know good and well that this law is attempting to establish that a particular behavior is harmful for a given entity, and if it does so then you begin to establish personhood for that entity. If that does in fact happen, then existing statutes regarding the harming of another person would apply.

We have laws against defacing the road signs too. Does that mean we are trying to establish that a road sign is a viable person?

Don't attempt and gloss over the patently obvious in order to strengthen the case of your political kin. I know you claim to be a libertarian, but I think we all know otherwise.

Who are my political kin?

Logical
06-15-2006, 10:24 AM
Drinking and/or smoking while pregnant is about the dumbest, most selfish act I can imagine. Should it be illegal? Probably.While I agree with your first statement I don't think laws on activity that does not affect others (technically the fetus is still part of the mother until born IMO) should be passed. Then again I am pretty much almost always against legislating morality which is how I view this issue.

banyon
06-15-2006, 10:25 AM
More dead, actually. Glad you see the point.

Well, here's a difference for ya. I think probably 95% of Americans during WWII would've identified the Holocaust as a morally depraved event. But the Abortion debate continues to stall on within 5-10% of 50% on each side for decades.

Debating this issue doesn't ever seem to progress. I shouldn't have even posted in this thread, because my inclination when people start yelling about dead babies and throwing buckets of blood around and the like is to just completely tune it out. It's clearly a difficult moral issue to decide, so I tend to favor the pro-choice side just because I want people to be able to make up their own minds about it. But if the pro-life side "won" I really wouldn't give a sh** either.

Logical
06-15-2006, 10:29 AM
Assuming for the moment (perhaps incorrectly) that this isn't some anti-abortion ruse, what's the next step? Treating all women as "potentially pregnant" and prohibiting them from drinking or smoking at all during their childbearing years? How else can "we" protect in utero children that are yet unknown to their mothers? Would it matter if drinking and smoking were more harmful to the <2 month pregnancy than to the more advanced fetus?Really excellent point.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 10:35 AM
I disagree. I don't think Joe Scarborough's opinion, whatever it is, can be extrapolated to "anyone who identifies as a Republican" nor to "the existing administration and their sycophants." Even if Joe Scarborough logged onto ChiefsPlanet right now and said he agreed with everything 'Hamas' Jenkins says on this subject it wouldn't amount to anything more than one guy agreeing with your otherwise unsupported assertion.



We have laws against defacing the road signs too. Does that mean we are trying to establish that a road sign is a viable person?



Who are my political kin?

The Road Sign analogy is a complete non-sequitur. Nice try. Don't play dumb and think that an attempt to legislate the body of a pregnant woman is not a stepping stone for further bodily incursions desired by conservatives.

Your political kin are LINO's. You call yourself libertarians because you might be a little bit tolerant on certain social issues, but in all reality you are a dyed in the wool conservative on almost all issues, as your continued support of this asinine administration will attest to.

Scarborough may be one person, but by this assertion, one could say that all Einstein's theory of relativity was the opinion of one person when he first published it. That doesn't change the accuracy of the statement. The point that Scarborough is making is that Republicans who claim to be against judicial activism are hypocrites. If you desire for a judge to change a law that's judicial activism, no matter how you want to color it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 10:39 AM
No kidding Capt Obvious.
But all I said was that it's not a minor amount.
It's "a" poll.


What are my views?
You probably don't even know.

If you are for what the people want, then how can you defend judges using the 14th Amendment to disregard state laws (reflects local values) especially using a case handled taken up by political activitists, using a woman ( McCorvey) who never even had an abortion, who lied for them and who admits this today?

The conservative view is to use the same precedent, using the 14th Amendment to overturn. That's doing no different than what the left did.
So where is this hypocrisy of which you speak?

The moderate view is that it gets determined by each state which reflects local values. Then you have competition between the states. What have you got to fear then?

BTW this view is Scalia's and was also Rhenquist's. I don't think it's Thomas'





Debating the poster and using ad hominem = intellectual bankruptcy.
And liberals complain about neocons? Must be projection huh?


The fact of the matter is that you are tryiing to paint abortion as an issue of extreme divisiveness among democrats. It is no more among the left than it is among the right. The point is that certain elements within the left are vocal about their "pro-life" viewpoints and people take that and run as though it is indicative among all the left's viewpoints. The left is fairly soundly pro-choice, the right pro-life, and the public is for the status quo as is born out among various polls, which is a pro-chioice standpoint as of now. (call their validity into question if you so desire).

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:43 AM
I don't get why you said, "[I]t's a good political tactic for establishing the legal framework for banning abortion through the courts." How so?
In reading this thread, I'll just attach myself to Jenkins clarification of the point I raised. He's laid out the details pretty accurately. No need to repeat everything again.

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 10:43 AM
If you desire for a judge to change a law that's judicial activism, no matter how you want to color it.
That's assisine.
Judges have various levels, and various jobs to do.
If you think it's a good idea to have the Supreme Court as a check and balance to the legislature, reviewing statutes to make sure they comport with the Constitution, is not even in the same ball park as applauding some municipal judge deciding a particular law isn't a good idea, or looking for a way around executing it faithfully.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 10:49 AM
Since they can legally pass ordinances forcing bar owners to not allow smoking in their establishments this shouldn't surprise anyone. The intent of those ordinances is to protect innocent people from 2nd hand smoke. This really isn't any different is it?

Although I would say a possible consequence might be to make people more apt to believe a fetus has rights. Which is a good thing IMO. Whether or not that's the original intent is not clear.

But I also see the possibility of another unwanted consequence....more abortions. I'd bet there are plenty of women out there that would choose their Marlboro's over a baby. There are plenty of pro-choice people out there to help them get over whatever conscience issues that might pop up.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:51 AM
Since they can legally pass ordinances forcing bar owners to not allow smoking in their establishments this shouldn't surprise anyone. The intent of those ordinances is to protect innocent people from 2nd hand smoke. This really isn't any different is it?
That's pretty much a central part of the point I raised at the start. (paraphrase)"Let's find a way to make it legal precedent that the fetus 'isn't really any different' from 'innocent people'".

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 11:11 AM
That's assisine.
Judges have various levels, and various jobs to do.
If you think it's a good idea to have the Supreme Court as a check and balance to the legislature, reviewing statutes to make sure they comport with the Constitution, is not even in the same ball park as applauding some municipal judge deciding a particular law isn't a good idea, or looking for a way around executing it faithfully.

That statement was made with an understanding that the reader might be intelligent enough to decipher that it was regarding settled judicial matters, of which abortion is a clearly settled legal matter. As someone in the legal field, you should at the very least be aware of this. Perhaps your Jack Bauer fascination has muddled your brain, :shrug:

patteeu
06-15-2006, 11:18 AM
The Road Sign analogy is a complete non-sequitur. Nice try. Don't play dumb and think that an attempt to legislate the body of a pregnant woman is not a stepping stone for further bodily incursions desired by conservatives.

I don't see how this law would move us a single step closer toward banning abortion through the courts as jAZ has suggested (and as he seems to think you've explained). Nothing you've said explains this at all. Your entire argument seems to be "it is because I say it is and because it's so obvious you'd have to be playing dumb to disagree." That, my friend, is not an argument. Do you have a better one?

Your political kin are LINO's. You call yourself libertarians because you might be a little bit tolerant on certain social issues, but in all reality you are a dyed in the wool conservative on almost all issues, as your continued support of this asinine administration will attest to.

Why would support of this administration make me a dyed in the wool conservative? Haven't you heard that the conservatives are really angry with GWBush? Perhaps you're mistaking my support of the Bush-led GWoT and my pragmatic recognition that Bush, despite his policy flaws, is better than almost any democrat on most issues with lockstep support. The reality is that I'm a moderate between the libertarians and the conservatives. I would say that aside from the GWoT, I'd agree more often with the Libertarians than with the Republicans though. But if it makes you feel good to think of me as a LINO, so be it. I'm sure there are plenty of koolaid Libertarians who would agree with you.

Scarborough may be one person, but by this assertion, one could say that all Einstein's theory of relativity was the opinion of one person when he first published it. That doesn't change the accuracy of the statement. The point that Scarborough is making is that Republicans who claim to be against judicial activism are hypocrites. If you desire for a judge to change a law that's judicial activism, no matter how you want to color it.

If Scarborough's statement were true then it would be hard to argue with it's accuracy. We can at least agree on that much. It's the "because-Scarborough-said-it-it-must-be-true" part that I disagree with. There is no denying that there are some conservatives who would be happy with a little conservative judicial activism, but it's equally undeniable, IMO, that the majority of people who oppose judicial activism in either direction are conservatives and/or libertarians.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 11:23 AM
That's pretty much a central part of the point I raised at the start. (paraphrase)"Let's find a way to make it legal precedent that the fetus 'isn't really any different' from 'innocent people'".

That's the problem I have with what you were saying. This isn't any kind of a legal precedent. It might be a PR precedent that makes people think of fetuses (feti?) as persons, but it has no legal impact that would make a court more likely to ban abortion judicially. What you are apparently focusing on is a psychological impact that this law might have which is different from laying a legal foundation for future activism like, for example, the equal protection arguments in favor of gay marriage do for other forms of nontraditional civil unions (e.g. marriages of 3 or more people).

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 11:24 AM
What I said was indeed assinine, so I need to fabricate a subtext and pretend it was clearly implied. Oh, and some random non-sequitur chaser.
Thanks for that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 11:25 AM
I don't see how this law would move us a single step closer toward banning abortion through the courts as jAZ has suggested (and as he seems to think you've explained). Nothing you've said explains this at all. Your entire argument seems to be "it is because I say it is and because it's so obvious you'd have to be playing dumb to disagree." That, my friend, is not an argument. Do you have a better one?



Why would support of this administration make me a dyed in the wool conservative? Haven't you heard that the conservatives are really angry with GWBush? Perhaps you're mistaking my support of the Bush-led GWoT and my pragmatic recognition that Bush, despite his policy flaws, is better than almost any democrat on most issues with lockstep support. The reality is that I'm a moderate between the libertarians and the conservatives. I would say that aside from the GWoT, I'd agree more often with the Libertarians than with the Republicans though. But if it makes you feel good to think of me as a LINO, so be it. I'm sure there are plenty of koolaid Libertarians who would agree with you.



If Scarborough's statement were true then it would be hard to argue with it's accuracy. We can at least agree on that much. It's the "because-Scarborough-said-it-it-must-be-true" part that I disagree with. There is no denying that there are some conservatives who would be happy with a little conservative judicial activism, but it's equally undeniable, IMO, that the majority of people who oppose judicial activism in either direction are conservatives and/or libertarians.

Dont' smoke in the fetus' face b/c the fetus is like the rest of us non-smokers, it doesn't want smoke around. It's harmful for the fetus, just like it is us. Come to think of it, the fetus is just like us. You know, killing us is illegal, therefore 'killing' the fetus should be illegal too. Yeah, yeah, its murder. Let's ban abortion, ban it now!! Burn those f*cking baby killers. Come on' Cletus, let's rig up some fertilizer bombs and drive them into the Planned Parenthood where we can set them off with a remote to our CD player that we always listen to Larry the Cable Guy on.


Is that clear enough??

I never said b/c Scarborough said it it's true, however, it can't be denied that many, many conservatives don't desire this. You know this, don't play stupid.

You are an apologist for the Bush administration and their cronies. They are neo-cons, the root word of which is *conservative*. You call yourself a libertarian b/c it's a buzzword. You're a conservative, most likely a neocon given your fairly enlightened views on same sex marriage (given that some neo-cons are fairly socially liberal).

jAZ
06-15-2006, 11:30 AM
That's the problem I have with what you were saying. This isn't any kind of a legal precedent. It might be a PR precedent that makes people think of fetuses (feti?) as persons, but it has no legal impact that would make a court more likely to ban abortion judicially. What you are apparently focusing on is a psychological impact that this law might have which is different from laying a legal foundation for future activism like, for example, the equal protection arguments in favor of gay marriage do for other forms of nontraditional civil unions (e.g. marriages of 3 or more people).
Maybe I can be more explicit and help you see the path that lies ahead... It's putting grease on the slope shortly before the anti-abortion lobby tries (again) to push abortion down it.

This would-be law gives folks a law in place to use as a vehicle for taking the issue of fetal-protection before the courts and obtaining a ruling that establishes (in a non-abortion context) that the fetus 'has a right to life'. And absent the political tension of an explicitly abortion-related case... a judge might find it easier to rule in favor of identifying the fetus as having a seperate and distinct right to life (and health).

If such a case were to advance through appeals successfully, it would become precedent for a future anti-abortion effort.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 11:33 AM
Dont' smoke in the fetus' face b/c the fetus is like the rest of us non-smokers, it doesn't want smoke around. It's harmful for the fetus, just like it is us. Come to think of it, the fetus is just like us. You know, killing us is illegal, therefore 'killing' the fetus should be illegal too. Yeah, yeah, its murder. Let's ban abortion, ban it now!! Burn those f*cking baby killers. Come on' Cletus, let's rig up some fertilizer bombs and drive them into the Planned Parenthood where we can set them off with a remote to our CD player that we always listen to Larry the Cable Guy on.
That lays out the emotional and cultural change that such a law provides. Add that to the "legal" one I'm talking about and it should be pretty clear to patteeu.

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 12:00 PM
Dont' smoke in the fetus' face b/c the fetus is like the rest of us non-smokers, it doesn't want smoke around. It's harmful for the fetus, just like it is us. Come to think of it, the fetus is just like us. You know, killing us is illegal, therefore 'killing' the fetus should be illegal too. Yeah, yeah, its murder. Let's ban abortion, ban it now!! Burn those f*cking baby killers. Come on' Cletus, let's rig up some fertilizer bombs and drive them into the Planned Parenthood where we can set them off with a remote to our CD player that we always listen to Larry the Cable Guy on.
That lays out the emotional and cultural change that such a law provides. Add that to the "legal" one I'm talking about and it should be pretty clear to patteeu.

Thank goodness you two aren't like those batshit insane 'slippery slope' opponents of giving gays civil recognition because they think it's gonna lead to mandated gay experimentation in public schools, and requiring pastors and bishops to perform gay marriages.
That's a load off my mind.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:04 PM
Thank goodness you two aren't like those batshit insane 'slippery slope' opponents of giving gays civil recognition because they think it's gonna lead to mandated gay experimentation in public schools, and requiring pastors and bishops to perform gay marriages.
That's a load off my mind.
Oddly enough, the atty couldn't find anything to dispute with my assessment of the legal steps possible given the law. Only my "slippery slope" metaphor.

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 12:12 PM
Oddly enough, the atty couldn't find anything to dispute with my assessment of the legal steps possible given the law. Only my "slippery slope" metaphor.
"couldn't' and 'won't waste his time with' are two separate concepts.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 12:34 PM
The fact of the matter is that you are tryiing to paint abortion as an issue of extreme divisiveness among democrats. It is no more among the left than it is among the right. The point is that certain elements within the left are vocal about their "pro-life" viewpoints and people take that and run as though it is indicative among all the left's viewpoints. The left is fairly soundly pro-choice, the right pro-life, and the public is for the status quo as is born out among various polls, which is a pro-chioice standpoint as of now. (call their validity into question if you so desire).

Well I certainly can't control what you actually get out of what I meant by a post I can only counter it by clarifying it further.

My point is that the issuedoes not fall along party-lines as neatly as some may want to paint it. Since I said even Liberatarians argue it and they are for the least amount of govt all around. It's the party platforms that lead one to feel it falls into party lines totally.

And it is also my understanding that many people on both sides of the issue on Roe v Wade never knew that the SC allowed abortion up to the ninth month allowing the states to set their own cut-off date. That idea disgusts most people. I believe, the current trend is that most people want some regulation on abortion but not to totally get rid of it.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:36 PM
"couldn't' and 'won't waste his time with' are two separate concepts.
You'd rather waste your time on other aspects of the post. Got it.

Logical
06-15-2006, 12:41 PM
....

But I also see the possibility of another unwanted consequence....more abortions. I'd bet there are plenty of women out there that would choose their Marlboro's over a baby. There are plenty of pro-choice people out there to help them get over whatever conscience issues that might pop up.

I would laugh my ass off if that is what happens.

Sully
06-15-2006, 12:46 PM
-coming from someone not well-versed in the law-

How would this make a fetus anymore of a person than the law that says if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 murders?

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 12:55 PM
I would laugh my ass off if that is what happens.
And thus answereth the question;

"Who the FARK laughs at an abortion?"

:clap:

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 01:00 PM
You'd rather waste your time on other aspects of the post. Got it.
It was an easily seen, and apt, observation.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:02 PM
-coming from someone not well-versed in the law-

How would this make a fetus anymore of a person than the law that says if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 murders?
It's identical to that. All legal efforts supported by the pro-life movement with the hopes that they can use them as legal stepping stones.

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 01:09 PM
It's identical to that. All legal efforts supported by the pro-life movement with the hopes that they can use them as legal stepping stones.
So, . . . If you put a stepping stone on a slippery slope, does that give you a foothold, or does it slip into the quagmire?

ROFL ROFL

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:17 PM
I* * *
Who are my political kin?well, you've got a cajun sounding name, so you must be one of them thar louisianna democrats, corrupt sum'bitches that they are...

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:19 PM
oh wait, maby it's a french name instead of cajun...

you could be a royalist supporting the return of the monarchy to france (it might improve the place)...

hanging out with all those headless dukes and such...

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:22 PM
The Road Sign analogy is a complete non-sequitur. Nice try. Don't play dumb and think that an attempt to legislate the body of a pregnant woman is not a stepping stone for further bodily incursions desired by conservatives.

Your political kin are LINO's. You call yourself libertarians because you might be a little bit tolerant on certain social issues, but in all reality you are a dyed in the wool conservative on almost all issues, as your continued support of this asinine administration will attest to.

Scarborough may be one person, but by this assertion, one could say that all Einstein's theory of relativity was the opinion of one person when he first published it. That doesn't change the accuracy of the statement. The point that Scarborough is making is that Republicans who claim to be against judicial activism are hypocrites. If you desire for a judge to change a law that's judicial activism, no matter how you want to color it.pardon my ignorance, but wtf is a lino?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 01:25 PM
well, you've got a cajun sounding name, so you must be one of them thar louisianna democrats, corrupt sum'bitches that they are...


My you're a real wise guy aren't you? ;) ROFL

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:25 PM
It was an easily seen, and apt, observation.
You sure are spending a lot of time and effort on this thread avoiding addressing my point while pretending that you *could* address it if you had the time and will.

That's an odd contradiction don't you think? You *could* address it (presumable to rebut my post), but you just don't wish to waste the time. You'd rather waste it addressing other ancillary aspects of that same post. Gosh, what to think.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 01:26 PM
I think it's odd some would find nothing wrong with imposing smoking bans on establishments where the clientele can get up and walk out if they don't like the smoke while at the same time attack wanting to put the same rules in place for an unborn wanted child with no say.

When I say wanted I mean it's evident the kid is going to be born or the mother would have aborted it.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:27 PM
pardon my ignorance, but wtf is a lino?
Libertarian In Name Only.

DINO, RINO, FINO, CINO, etc...

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:27 PM
Since they can legally pass ordinances forcing bar owners to not allow smoking in their establishments this shouldn't surprise anyone. The intent of those ordinances is to protect innocent people from 2nd hand smoke. This really isn't any different is it?

Although I would say a possible consequence might be to make people more apt to believe a fetus has rights. Which is a good thing IMO. Whether or not that's the original intent is not clear.

But I also see the possibility of another unwanted consequence....more abortions. I'd bet there are plenty of women out there that would choose their Marlboro's over a baby. There are plenty of pro-choice people out there to help them get over whatever conscience issues that might pop up.i have a niece who's jw and she is like totally whacked about the possible effects of smoking on the fetus early in the pregnancy...

so whacked that when she found out she was pregnant, unplanned, she actually considered an abortion so she could stop smoking and try again...

whacked, i tells ya...

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 01:30 PM
i have a niece who's jw and she is like totally whacked about the possible effects of smoking on the fetus early in the pregnancy...

so whacked that when she found out she was pregnant, unplanned, she actually considered an abortion so she could stop smoking and try again...

whacked, i tells ya...

No offense but that is whacked.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:31 PM
I think it's odd some would find nothing wrong with imposing ...
Who's the "some" that you refer to here? I haven't heard anyone on this thread take the position you describe.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 01:32 PM
No offense but that is whacked.
No kidding.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 01:34 PM
Who's the "some" that you refer to here? I haven't heard anyone on this thread take the position you describe.

I didn't say anyone here on the planet. Nobody here would be dumb enough to have such a ridiculous position.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:35 PM
Maybe I can be more explicit and help you see the path that lies ahead... It's putting grease on the slope shortly before the anti-abortion lobby tries (again) to push abortion down it.

This would-be law gives folks a law in place to use as a vehicle for taking the issue of fetal-protection before the courts and obtaining a ruling that establishes (in a non-abortion context) that the fetus 'has a right to life'. And absent the political tension of an explicitly abortion-related case... a judge might find it easier to rule in favor of identifying the fetus as having a seperate and distinct right to life (and health).

If such a case were to advance through appeals successfully, it would become precedent for a future anti-abortion effort.well, it doesn't quite work that way...

to be appealed successfully in the supreme court, the court would have to partially overrule wade, and that doesn't look likely unless the president gets a chance to appoint another very conservative anti-abortion justice (or *gasp* two :eek: )

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:38 PM
Oddly enough, the atty couldn't find anything to dispute with my assessment of the legal steps possible given the law. Only my "slippery slope" metaphor.hey jaz, you know what you get when you put 2 lawyers in a room?

three opinions...

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:41 PM
"couldn't' and 'won't waste his time with' are two separate concepts.ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:43 PM
So, . . . If you put a stepping stone on a slippery slope, does that give you a foothold, or does it slip into the quagmire?

ROFL ROFLstop it... stop it...

you're killing me here... ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:49 PM
I think it's odd some would find nothing wrong with imposing smoking bans on establishments where the clientele can get up and walk out if they don't like the smoke while at the same time attack wanting to put the same rules in place for an unborn wanted child with no say.

When I say wanted I mean it's evident the kid is going to be born or the mother would have aborted it.actually, even as a reformed smoker, i personally don't like the laws banning smoking in restaurants and bars...

if some owners want to offer a smoke free environment for those who don't like smoke, they are free to do so...

similarly, if an owner has a clientele that smokes or doesn't mind smoking, he should be able to run his establishment as he chooses...

let the free market determine which places are smoking or no smoking establishments...

i know, i know, this fight has already been lost in lots of cities...

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:54 PM
No offense but that is whacked.her religious family persuaded her not to do it (primarily my wife's sister who was raised catholic and is now a jw)...

of course, i understand that what you are probably referring to is considering an abortion at all, under most if not all circumstances...

i regard the part where she thought she might get an abortion because she was smoking and drinking in the early part of her pregnancy as whacked, as in the reason is whacked, not the thought of getting an abortion in general...

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:55 PM
I didn't say anyone here on the planet. Nobody here would be dumb enough to have such a ridiculous position.nobody?

are you sure you want to go with that assumption?

this is d.c. after all...

Logical
06-15-2006, 02:01 PM
Who's the "some" that you refer to here? I haven't heard anyone on this thread take the position you describe.

He might be talking about me with my laughing my ass off comment.

I do find it acceptable to ban smoking in bars and such while I do not find it acceptable to tell a woman it is illegal for her to smoke to protect her fetus. It is selfish for a woman not to do those things to protect her fetus but the government should not be making laws on such personal issues. First they are basically unenforceable as the woman may not know she is pregnant for the early months so enforcing it would be unjust.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 02:01 PM
Maybe I can be more explicit and help you see the path that lies ahead... It's putting grease on the slope shortly before the anti-abortion lobby tries (again) to push abortion down it.

This would-be law gives folks a law in place to use as a vehicle for taking the issue of fetal-protection before the courts and obtaining a ruling that establishes (in a non-abortion context) that the fetus 'has a right to life'. And absent the political tension of an explicitly abortion-related case... a judge might find it easier to rule in favor of identifying the fetus as having a seperate and distinct right to life (and health).

If such a case were to advance through appeals successfully, it would become precedent for a future anti-abortion effort.

Well I suppose a judge who wanted to go way out of his way to declare a fetus to be a person might do as you suggest, but there would be no reason to do so since state legislatures have plenty of power to regulate this type of behavior for almost any noncapricious reason. Any judge who wants to go that far out of his way is going to do so in a more straightforward abortion case too. *edit* And either way, as go bo points out, he's going to run into the Roe v. Wade precedents. */edit* Frankly, I don't see it and think you are just on a wild goose chase here.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 02:07 PM
I didn't say anyone here on the planet. Nobody here would be dumb enough to have such a ridiculous position.

You better check with Logical on that. I know he's an advocate of smoking bans and that he tends to oppose anything the religious right endorses so he might be your guy.

patteeu
06-15-2006, 02:08 PM
hey jaz, you know what you get when you put 2 lawyers in a room?

three opinions...

And you said you couldn't remember jokes. LOL

patteeu
06-15-2006, 02:13 PM
You better check with Logical on that. I know he's an advocate of smoking bans and that he tends to oppose anything the religious right endorses so he might be your guy.

I see he's already stepped forward.

He might be talking about me with my laughing my ass off comment.

I do find it acceptable to ban smoking in bars and such while I do not find it acceptable to tell a woman it is illegal for her to smoke to protect her fetus. It is selfish for a woman not to do those things to protect her fetus but the government should not be making laws on such personal issues. First they are basically unenforceable as the woman may not know she is pregnant for the early months so enforcing it would be unjust.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 02:22 PM
And you said you couldn't remember jokes. LOLmy repertoire is seriously limited...

i remember the 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea (but that was in philadelphia), the 3 opinions, and one that has something to do with an engineer, a doctor and a lawyer discussing their dogs (which i remember because my engineer brother would tell it to anybody who would listen)...

that's about it...

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 02:39 PM
my repertoire is seriously limited...


I noticed. ROFL
You laugh at your own jokes too much too. :p
And you are too easily amused by news sites you don't like. :)

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 02:45 PM
my repertoire is seriously limited...

i remember the 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea (but that was in philadelphia), the 3 opinions, and one that has something to do with an engineer, a doctor and a lawyer discussing their dogs (which i remember because my engineer brother would tell it to anybody who would listen)...

that's about it...
My favorite is the one about the guy who is diagnosed with a terminal disease. You can get real flowery with the storytelling, but he races his way to get his GED, fast track through undergrad, powers his way through law school, crams for and passes the bar. The day after swearing in, he collapses in exhaustion, and appears to be succombing to his condition. As he's lying on his deathbed, family gathered around, he grabs his wife's hand. A look of serenity crosses his face. "One more dead lawyer." Gaaaaahhhh!!! Beeeeep.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 03:09 PM
it's important to have goals...

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 06:23 PM
He might be talking about me with my laughing my ass off comment.

I do find it acceptable to ban smoking in bars and such while I do not find it acceptable to tell a woman it is illegal for her to smoke to protect her fetus. It is selfish for a woman not to do those things to protect her fetus but the government should not be making laws on such personal issues. First they are basically unenforceable as the woman may not know she is pregnant for the early months so enforcing it would be unjust.

I considered your "laughing my ass off" comment to be aimed at the irony of laws created with an ulterior motive to force the abortion issue to a head end up causing more in the end. Gotta admit, that would be ironically stoopid.

As for me, I don't think bars should be told they have to ban smoing or mothers be told they can't smoke either. I just think the position you take is flawed with no logic behind it.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 07:03 PM
well, it doesn't quite work that way...

to be appealed successfully in the supreme court, the court would have to partially overrule wade, and that doesn't look likely unless the president gets a chance to appoint another very conservative anti-abortion justice (or *gasp* two :eek: )
go bo, correct me if I'm missing your point, but I don't see that you are disagreeing with the specifics that I am putting forward as much as you are saying that IYO there aren't (yet) the votes to support overturning even a portion of RvW, even with what might become a potentially new legal defintion (extending rights to a fetus) as a basis.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 08:09 PM
I considered your "laughing my ass off" comment to be aimed at the irony of laws created with an ulterior motive to force the abortion issue to a head end up causing more in the end. Gotta admit, that would be ironically stoopid.

As for me, I don't think bars should be told they have to ban smoing or mothers be told they can't smoke either. I just think the position you take is flawed with no logic behind it.
I would say IMO, that
1) Bars can rightly be regulated fairly easily... they are a business not a citizen.
2) Personal behavior can be limited, but IMO the bar is higher, and typically should come down to is one person infringing on another's rights

In this case the fetus doesn't have rights for the mother to infringe upon. But that's the point of the law... to blur that bold distinction and find ways to permit people, judges and lawmakers a way to extend rights to a fetus.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 08:35 PM
I would say IMO, that
1) Bars can rightly be regulated fairly easily... they are a business not a citizen.
2) Personal behavior can be limited, but IMO the bar is higher, and typically should come down to is one person infringing on another's rights

In this case the fetus doesn't have rights for the mother to infringe upon. But that's the point of the law... to blur that bold distinction and find ways to permit people, judges and lawmakers a way to extend rights to a fetus.

Your first point is well taken. That's one reason I find this proposal silly.

But to your second point, I would say the rights of the smoker are being infringed equally if not more by telling a tavern owner he must ban smoking. Let the non-smoker find a smoke free bar and let the market place dictate which way the owner chooses to run his establishment.

I don't agree that an unborn baby doesn't have rights. Once the mother chooses not to abort the assumption should be made the fetus will become a breathing human being.

The argument could be made we don't allow the mother to abuse the child with beatings after it's born, why should we allow her to shorten it's life by smoking when she plans on giving birth?

A non-smoker can walk out of a smoke filled bar...a baby can't walk out of a womb. If anything the non-smoker has less to lose than the baby.

Is the real reason for smoking bans in bars to protect the non-smokers or to force smokers to quit? The same case you are making for the ulterior motive of the mother smoking law can be made for the smoking ban laws in bars.

To believe one is just and not the other doesn't make sense to me.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 08:42 PM
Your first point is well taken. That's one reason I find this proposal silly.

But to your second point, I would say the rights of the smoker are being infringed equally if not more by telling a tavern owner he must ban smoking. Let the non-smoker find a smoke free bar and let the market place dictate which way the owner chooses to run his establishment.
No one is forcing the smoker to go to the bar. Take the example of masterbation. You aren't allowed to masterbate at the same bar, but you can when you get home. Same with smoking. It's a goofy example, but it's the exact same thing. It's an issue of public health.

And keep in mind that I don't get a ticket for smoking in the bar. The bar owner gets it for letting me. The regulation is on the bar, not the person. That's an important distinction to keep in mind.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 08:46 PM
I don't agree that an unborn baby doesn't have rights.
You aren't alone, but that's exactly my point. Legally a fetus has no rights. You might think that's wrong, but it's the state of our legal system. And laws like this are designed to change the underlying legal platform to alter that fact and extend rights to the fetus. Once the mother chooses not to abort the assumption should be made the fetus will become a breathing human being.
How does one define "once the mother chooses not to abort"? At what point does your standard take affect and what if she's undecided, or what if she changes her mind? Your standard is unworkable because it requires knowing the heart of someone.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 08:47 PM
Is the real reason for smoking bans in bars to protect the non-smokers or to force smokers to quit?
It's to protect the non-smokers, and in particular to protect the employees who work in that environment.

Hydrae
06-15-2006, 09:10 PM
It's to protect the non-smokers, and in particular to protect the employees who work in that environment.

If there were an economic reason to ban smoking from an establishment, we would have seen a lot of non-smoking places already in place. There is no need for the government to get involved in this discussion IMO. That is what a free market should be all about, supply and demand. If there is a demand for non-smoking establishments, there would be no need for a law about this, the market would adjust accordingly.

As to the employees, they can get a job elsewhere if this is an issue for them, noone is telling them where they have to work.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:14 PM
No one is forcing the smoker to go to the bar. Take the example of masterbation. You aren't allowed to masterbate at the same bar, but you can when you get home. Same with smoking. It's a goofy example, but it's the exact same thing. It's an issue of public health.

And keep in mind that I don't get a ticket for smoking in the bar. The bar owner gets it for letting me. The regulation is on the bar, not the person. That's an important distinction to keep in mind.

Bleh. Public health could also dictate shutting down all KFC's because they use oil full of trans fatty acid. If you want to live longer, don't go to KFC, it's your choice. But in this case the bar owner is the same as the guy that owns the KFC franchise.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:23 PM
You aren't alone, but that's exactly my point. Legally a fetus has no rights. You might think that's wrong, but it's the state of our legal system. And laws like this are designed to change the underlying legal platform to alter that fact and extend rights to the fetus.

There was a time our legal system didn't let women vote or Negros be free. That's why the constitution is a living document.


How does one define "once the mother chooses not to abort"? At what point does your standard take affect and what if she's undecided, or what if she changes her mind? Your standard is unworkable because it requires knowing the heart of someone.

This one is easy. As long as she knows she's pregnant and chooses to smoke the law pertains to her.

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:26 PM
It's to protect the non-smokers, and in particular to protect the employees who work in that environment.

Like Jared chooses Subway over KFC 4 times a week, a non-smoker could find a smoke free bar.

Same goes for the employee that works there.

Logical
06-15-2006, 09:26 PM
...


This one is easy. As long as she knows she's pregnant and chooses to smoke the law pertains to her.Unless she has been diagnosed by a Doctor how do you prove she knew she was pregnant?

mlyonsd
06-15-2006, 09:42 PM
Unless she has been diagnosed by a Doctor how do you prove she knew she was pregnant?

Find someone that knows her that will testify she knows.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid just like you.

Unlike you I'm saying the same reasons that make this stupid can be used towards the laws that take the right of the bar owner to choose if smoking should be allowed in his establishment.

Last I checked tobacco was still subsidized by our government. I can't see how that same government could then force a business owner to not allow it.

In the end, like you, laughing your ass off if an unseen consequence comes back to bite those that propose the law, the same goes for me. I'll laugh my ass off if forcing smoking bans in certain businesses against their owner's wishes has the unseen consequence of giving a fetus rights in the eyes of the law.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 09:46 PM
Last I checked tobacco was still subsidized by our government. I can't see how that same government could then force a business owner to not allow it.

OMG! I've heard that before....good point.

Bob Dole
06-15-2006, 10:27 PM
now they want to control their personal habits as well?

i don't know, maybe that's taking it too far...

Gee...ya think? ;)

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:33 PM
Last I checked tobacco was still subsidized by our government.
No offense but that is whacked.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:36 PM
I'll laugh my ass off if forcing smoking bans in certain businesses against their owner's wishes has the unseen consequence of giving a fetus rights in the eyes of the law.
I think you've confused "making it illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke" with "banning smoking in bars" here.

jAZ
06-15-2006, 10:38 PM
Like Jared chooses Subway over KFC 4 times a week, a non-smoker could find a smoke free bar.

Same goes for the employee that works there.
I agree with the former, but not the latter. Sorry. It's a work place safety issue. That's completely acceptable for regulation IMO.

Logical
06-15-2006, 10:56 PM
...

Last I checked tobacco was still subsidized by our government. ....

Farmers are subsidized by the government for idling a certain percentage of land, not growing certain crops etc. If this is what you mean, then yes tobacco farmers are subsidized. The tobacco conglomerates like RJ Reynolds etc are not subsidized.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 11:44 PM
go bo, correct me if I'm missing your point, but I don't see that you are disagreeing with the specifics that I am putting forward as much as you are saying that IYO there aren't (yet) the votes to support overturning even a portion of RvW, even with what might become a potentially new legal defintion (extending rights to a fetus) as a basis.my points get missed alot, don't worry about it...

but yeah, you've about got it...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 12:30 AM
Thanks for that.

Glad to see that the almight attorney has time to rewrite other's posts but not to address the supposed fallacies with the arguments of the other side. Perhaps it is because his usual bluster doesn't work on people who are actually informed of the matter at hand so he plays it off as though we are unworthy of further rebuke :shrug:

jAZ
06-16-2006, 12:40 AM
my points get missed alot, don't worry about it...

but yeah, you've about got it...
What makes you feel that the new shift of the SC makeup won't shift the vote at the SC level?

mlyonsd
06-16-2006, 08:25 AM
I think you've confused "making it illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke" with "banning smoking in bars" here.

What I'm saying is the over zealous penny loafer wearing lawmaking crowd that thinks they know what is best for me might have opened a hole that might be used to close another. Which pretty much agrees with your first point on the thread but from a different angle.

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:02 AM
Glad to see that the almight attorney has time to rewrite other's posts but not to address the supposed fallacies with the arguments of the other side. Perhaps it is because his usual bluster doesn't work on people who are actually informed of the matter at hand so he plays it off as though we are unworthy of further rebuke :shrug:what the **** is it with you and buceyedpea?

wtf does being a lawyer have to do with anything? you biggoted pos...

you want to talk about bluster and further rebuke, you should check out your own posting style...

and i'm not real sure you are "actually" informed about much outside of your academic sanctuary...

academic people are quite transparent, didn't you know?

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:07 AM
What makes you feel that the new shift of the SC makeup won't shift the vote at the SC level?when roberts and alito were testifying about stare decisis, they were serious...

they may chip away at the edges in terms of allowing greater state regulation in some areas, but they're good judges and they won't throw the american legal system into chaos by completly overtturning wade and the entire body of law that people have relied on for 30 years and have a right to rely on for the next 30 years...

scalia and thomas are different fish, they'd vote to overturn it completely, imo...

no, i think it will take one or two more ideologues like thomas or scalia to overtturn wade...

patteeu
06-16-2006, 11:12 AM
go bo, correct me if I'm missing your point, but I don't see that you are disagreeing with the specifics that I am putting forward as much as you are saying that IYO there aren't (yet) the votes to support overturning even a portion of RvW, even with what might become a potentially new legal defintion (extending rights to a fetus) as a basis.

Maybe I'm still confused about your point, but you aren't suggesting that this law extends rights to a fetus are you?

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:34 AM
Maybe I'm still confused about your point, but you aren't suggesting that this law extends rights to a fetus are you?i don't know for "sure" how jaz feels about this, but i don't think there's any question that this proposed law would not technically extend any right to a fetus...

but the psychological and political effect would be that the rights of a fetus are being recognized in the law, in however small and inditect way...

and pro-lifers will probably try to characterize it that way...

mlyonsd
06-16-2006, 12:34 PM
what the **** is it with you and buceyedpea?

wtf does being a lawyer have to do with anything? you biggoted pos...

you want to talk about bluster and further rebuke, you should check out your own posting style...

and i'm not real sure you are "actually" informed about much outside of your academic sanctuary...

academic people are quite transparent, didn't you know?

Holy crap....raiset the terror alert to red. This is as close to meltdown as I've ever seen go bo get.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 12:46 PM
what the **** is it with you and buceyedpea?

wtf does being a lawyer have to do with anything? you biggoted pos...

you want to talk about bluster and further rebuke, you should check out your own posting style...

and i'm not real sure you are "actually" informed about much outside of your academic sanctuary...

academic people are quite transparent, didn't you know?

This was directed towards Baby Lee, not BucEyedPea.

Pay attention. You lose all participation points for the day.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 01:01 PM
This was directed towards Baby Lee, not BucEyedPea.

Pay attention. You lose all participation points for the day.
He was comparing you to BEP, not commenting on exchanges between you and BEP.

Pay attention. You surrender all participation points for the day to go bo.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 01:03 PM
what the **** is it with you and buceyedpea?

wtf does being a lawyer have to do with anything? you biggoted pos...

you want to talk about bluster and further rebuke, you should check out your own posting style...

and i'm not real sure you are "actually" informed about much outside of your academic sanctuary...

academic people are quite transparent, didn't you know?
BTW - Thanks for the support, but I'm savvy to Hamas enough to know that when he's rebuking me for what I didn't say, it's because he realizes the truth of what I DID say. The rest I take with a grain of salt.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:04 PM
what the **** is it with you and buceyedpea?

wtf does being a lawyer have to do with anything? you biggoted pos...

you want to talk about bluster and further rebuke, you should check out your own posting style...

and i'm not real sure you are "actually" informed about much outside of your academic sanctuary...

academic people are quite transparent, didn't you know?

Glad to see you have consistency among your most desired features:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by jAZ
Oddly enough, the atty couldn't find anything to dispute with my assessment of the legal steps possible given the law. Only my "slippery slope" metaphor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hey jaz, you know what you get when you put 2 lawyers in a room?

three opinions..

My comment was made in conversation with jAZ's comment given BL's dismissive tone. Furthermore the fact that you give me shit after cracking on lawyers yourself proves that *your opinion* carries weight :spock:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:08 PM
BTW - Thanks for the support, but I'm savvy to Hamas enough to know that when he's rebuking me for what I didn't say, it's because he realizes the truth of what I DID say. The rest I take with a grain of salt.

You are truly 12 pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a 4 pound bag.


This post was never addressed by you:


Glad to see that the almight attorney has time to rewrite other's posts but not to address the supposed fallacies with the arguments of the other side. Perhaps it is because his usual bluster doesn't work on people who are actually informed of the matter at hand so he plays it off as though we are unworthy of further rebuke

Because instead of replying to my post, you decided to do the ever-couragous "quote-editor" function, to which my above post was directed.

Maybe, maybe a jury of 12 cab drivers is dumb enough to see through your facade of bullshit, but it doesn't fly with me. Nice try, but for you to make this assertion is like trying to watch a quadriplegic kick his own ass. Fortunately, your words give you a nice push down the slope.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 01:16 PM
You are truly 12 pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a 4 pound bag.


This post was never addressed by you:



Because instead of replying to my post, you decided to do the ever-couragous "quote-editor" function, to which my above post was directed.

Maybe, maybe a jury of 12 cab drivers is dumb enough to see through your facade of bullshit, but it doesn't fly with me. Nice try, but for you to make this assertion is like trying to watch a quadriplegic kick his own ass. Fortunately, your words give you a nice push down the slope.
I made my point, you ceded my point, I thanked you for ceding.
It's not my job to critique everyone. I don't see you critiquing anyone on 'your' side.
You have problems with the points I make, refute them. Busting on me for not tearing other arguments down with the same ease and aplomb I tear your down is weak.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:24 PM
I made my point, you ceded my point, I thanked you for ceding.
It's not my job to critique everyone. I don't see you critiquing anyone on 'your' side.
You have problems with the points I make, refute them. Busting on me for not tearing other arguments down with the same ease and aplomb I tear your down is weak.

I cede your point by saying that you are full of shit when instead of ''critiquing" my point and "tearing down my argument" you rewrite my posts with your own desired effect instead of honestly analyzing what I say. Give me a f*cking break.

I've seen you spout out some true horseshit, but this truly takes the cake. Jesus talk about some wanton projection.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:27 PM
I made my point, you ceded my point, I thanked you for ceding.
It's not my job to critique everyone. I don't see you critiquing anyone on 'your' side.
You have problems with the points I make, refute them. Busting on me for not tearing other arguments down with the same ease and aplomb I tear your down is weak.

By the way, nice try to try and avoid the post which you still never addressed claiming that you did in fact do it by deleting it from the quote that you excised. I'm not a f*cking neanderthal, like the dropfoots you swindle into your services. Either discuss what I am talking about, or shut the f*ck up, because you're empty-headed bluster about your own aplomb is about as empty as the space between Paris Hilton's head.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 01:30 PM
By the way, nice try to try and avoid the post which you still never addressed claiming that you did in fact do it by deleting it from the quote that you excised. I'm not a f*cking neanderthal, like the dropfoots you swindle into your services. Either discuss what I am talking about, or shut the f*ck up, because you're empty-headed bluster about your own aplomb is about as empty as the space between Paris Hilton's head.
OK, enough. Cards on the table, you should probably be aware that your anger is very amusing to me.
I'm not one given to f@cking around with people, but you are sooo insane, and soooo excitable, that I made an exception.
Sorry.
I'm not a fan when TJ, Donger, Kotter, Logical or Mememe do it, and I shouldn't have.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:35 PM
OK, enough. Cards on the table, you should probably be aware that your anger is very amusing to me.
I'm not one given to f@cking around with people, but you are sooo insane, and soooo excitable, that I made an exception.
Sorry.

In short, you were proven wrong, and instead of admitting it, your only recourse is "I was just f*cking with you". I'm not an OJ juror. I can see the patently obvious when it is presented before me. Nice try, though, a positively Schottenheimerian denial of what is right in front of you. Yes, yes, you are going to open up the offense. :shake:

BucEyedPea
06-16-2006, 01:45 PM
what the **** is it with you and buceyedpea?

Wow! Oh Wow! You even talk about me in another thread...behind my back!
Or you can't stop thinkin' about me! I guess I should be flattered! Tee! Hee! ROFL

I luv you too! :drool: o:-)

patteeu
06-16-2006, 01:45 PM
i don't know for "sure" how jaz feels about this, but i don't think there's any question that this proposed law would not technically extend any right to a fetus...

but the psychological and political effect would be that the rights of a fetus are being recognized in the law, in however small and inditect way...

and pro-lifers will probably try to characterize it that way...

I agree with that. I think my hangup with jAZ is that I don't like the way he describes it or at least the way I'm interpreting him.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 01:46 PM
In short, you were proven wrong, and instead of admitting it, your only recourse is "I was just f*cking with you". I'm not an OJ juror. I can see the patently obvious when it is presented before me. Nice try, though, a positively Schottenheimerian denial of what is right in front of you. Yes, yes, you are going to open up the offense. :shake:
No, I was right in my original point.

You overstated your point

Hamas - "If you desire for a judge to change a law that's judicial activism, no matter how you want to color it."

I pointed out the overstatement

You did not address the overstatement, and instead made a leap of logic that all should understand that your overstatement only applied to Rowe v. Wade.

Your limitation isn't even applicable. People who decry judicial activism are very rarely talking about Supreme Court decisions. 99 out of 100 are referring to the other levels of the judiciary, criminal judges who refuse to follow sentencing guidelines, civil judges who strike down ballot initiatives, as I pointed out. Even people who decry Rowe v. Wade aren't decrying the function of the Supreme Court. They are decrying a poorly reasoned [in their opinion] decision.

You wanted to get away with the proposition that anyone who recognizes the function of the Supreme Court has to accept judicial activism in all it's forms and colors. And I didn't let you.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 01:49 PM
I agree with that. I think my hangup with jAZ is that I don't like the way he describes it or at least the way I'm interpreting him.
I think the difference is that go bo merely observes the probability that Pro-Lifers will try to make the extension, and may succeed or may fail, while jAZ dismisses any analysis of the merits of the issue because, whatever other good it might do, it opens the door to those efforts.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:14 PM
No, I was right in my original point.

You overstated your point

Hamas - "If you desire for a judge to change a law that's judicial activism, no matter how you want to color it."

I pointed out the overstatement

You did not address the overstatement, and instead made a leap of logic that all should understand that your overstatement only applied to Rowe v. Wade.

Your limitation isn't even applicable. People who decry judicial activism are very rarely talking about Supreme Court decisions. 99 out of 100 are referring to the other levels of the judiciary, criminal judges who refuse to follow sentencing guidelines, civil judges who strike down ballot initiatives, as I pointed out. Even people who decry Rowe v. Wade aren't decrying the function of the Supreme Court. They are decrying a poorly reasoned [in their opinion] decision.

You wanted to get away with the proposition that anyone who recognizes the function of the Supreme Court has to accept judicial activism in all it's forms and colors. And I didn't let you.

Did I or did I not limit my qualification to only Supreme Court decisions, because if I did, I'd like to see it. The fact of the matter is that those who want various appeals court judges to set the precedents for undermining worker's safety are advocating for judicial activism (and those in support of so-called tort reform are overwhelmingly conservative), yet when liberals want judges to overturn various statutes regarding same sex marriage they see that as impinging judicial activism. Conservatives want to paint liberals as desiring judicial activism when they themselves want it to the same extent, and not just on the national level. You should be well aware of this, as am I. If I was not as learned on this subject you might be able to dissuade me, but the fact of the matter is that I'm not a damned simpleton who only knows about various hot-button issues and what the party lines are in regards to them.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 02:20 PM
those who want various appeals court judges to set the precedents for undermining worker's safety
You'll need to explain this, as I am at a loss as to exactly what you are talking about.
those in support of so-called tort reform are overwhelmingly conservative
Tort reform is judicial activism?
Interesting characterization of a legislative push.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:26 PM
Tort reform is judicial activism?
Interesting characterization of a legislative push.

So one of the justifications on behalf of Republicans in support of tort reform (the state's rights angle for one) has absolutely no genesis in judicial interpretation whatsoever?? Interesting analysis.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 02:36 PM
So one of the justifications on behalf of Republicans in support of tort reform (the state's rights angle for one) has absolutely no genesis in judicial interpretation whatsoever?? Interesting analysis.
Not sure the point you're making, but legislation, the legislation itself, cannot be judicially active, no matter what it's genesis or rationale.
Judicial activism is exceeding or ignoring the legislative and precedental framework from the bench.
The framework cannot exceed the framework.

go bowe
06-16-2006, 02:38 PM
Glad to see you have consistency among your most desired features:
* * *
My comment was made in conversation with jAZ's comment given BL's dismissive tone. Furthermore the fact that you give me shit after cracking on lawyers yourself proves that *your opinion* carries weight :spock:the weight of my opinion on any subject is whatever other posters choose to give it...

i'm confident that my opinion carries some weight with at least some of the regulars around here because they have seen me posting for a long time and have formed an opinion of me based on my posts...

and there's a difference between kidding around between friends and disparaging people and their opinions on the basis of some inane stereostype of what they do for a living...

if baby lee uses a dismissive tone with you, it's probably because you deserve it rather than because he's a lawyer...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:39 PM
Conservative representatives nominate conservative judges, such as Priscilla Owen, who are generally pro big business, and support businesses and corporate interests in the face of the common man. Tort reform is pushed on a legislative level and can then be supported on the tail end by business-loving judges who will be less likely to find in the favor of plaintiffs. Their activist policies (pro big business) are supported on either end. It's not a support of the status quo, but rather a return to 19th century-era worker's rights, in my humble opinion.

mlyonsd
06-16-2006, 02:41 PM
i'm confident that my opinion carries some weight with at least some of the regulars around here because they have seen me posting for a long time and have formed an opinion of me based on my posts...



:bong:

patteeu
06-16-2006, 02:42 PM
Tort reform is judicial activism?
Interesting characterization of a legislative push.

I was scratching my head on that one too and wondering if there's a little known movement to achieve tort reform through the courts. Everything I'm aware of has been aimed at legislating a change.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 02:42 PM
if baby lee uses a dismissive tone with you, it's probably because you deserve it rather than because he's a lawyer...
Or maybe it's my seemy 'Jack-Mormon' underbelly?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:42 PM
Not sure the point you're making, but legislation, the legislation itself, cannot be judicially active, no matter what it's genesis or rationale.
Judicial activism is exceeding or ignoring the legislative and precedental framework from the bench.
The framework cannot exceed the framework.

It's a dual-pronged attack. It is a change in the current status quo, and it is something that would most likely be seen as an unconstitutional impingement upon the safety of workers if not for the pro-business interests of a republican-heavy judiciary.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:43 PM
Or maybe it's my seemy 'Jack-Mormon' underbelly?

Jack-Mormons, they're fantastic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Nba_on_nbc.jpg

mlyonsd
06-16-2006, 02:44 PM
i'm confident that my opinion carries some weight with at least some of the regulars around here because they have seen me posting for a long time and have formed an opinion of me based on my posts...


j/k go bo....we all know you post in a style so as to be liked by everyone. Or so the observation was made.

ROFL

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 02:45 PM
It's a dual-pronged attack. It is a change in the current status quo, and it is something that would most likely be seen as an unconstitutional impingement upon the safety of workers if not for the pro-business interests of a republican-heavy judiciary.
So at this point, you're not talking about judicial activism at all. Just your assessment of the general direction of the nation.

'pro-business,' or 'pro-worker' is not judicial activism, unless it exceeds the framework of legislation and precedent.

Thanks again for pointing out how I was wrong and didn't understand the issues.

go bowe
06-16-2006, 02:45 PM
:bong:ROFL ROFL ROFL

patteeu
06-16-2006, 02:46 PM
Conservative representatives nominate conservative judges, such as Priscilla Owen, who are generally pro big business, and support businesses and corporate interests in the face of the common man. Tort reform is pushed on a legislative level and can then be supported on the tail end by business-loving judges who will be less likely to find in the favor of plaintiffs. Their activist policies (pro big business) are supported on either end. It's not a support of the status quo, but rather a return to 19th century-era worker's rights, in my humble opinion.

Ah, I see. It's judicial activism when pro-business courts refuse to invalidate tort reform legislation as they should since it doesn't pass the 'Hamas' Jenkins' rationality test found somewhere within the penumbras and emanations of the constitution.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:49 PM
Ah, I see. It's judicial activism when pro-business courts refuse to invalidate tort reform legislation as they should since it doesn't pass the 'Hamas' Jenkins' rationality test found somewhere within the penumbras and emanations of the constitution.

OSHA be damned, or so it would seem, all those f*cking regulations make it hard for Belvedere Cristal to turn more than a 20% profit.

go bowe
06-16-2006, 02:50 PM
Or maybe it's my seemy 'Jack-Mormon' underbelly?seemy?

now that one i can't find in my ms dictionary...

and here i thought i was going to be exposed to yet another new and interesting word...


btw, what's being a jack mormon got to do with this? people who don't go to church are dismissive?

help me out here...

go bowe
06-16-2006, 02:52 PM
j/k go bo....we all know you post in a style so as to be liked by everyone. Or so the observation was made.

ROFLyeah, thank God for taco, eh?

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 02:54 PM
seemy?

now that one i can't find in my ms dictionary...

and here i thought i was going to be exposed to yet another new and interesting word...


btw, what's being a jack mormon got to do with this? people who don't go to church are dismissive?

help me out here...
I spoonerized seamy and unseemly. Shoot me, fugger!! :p
And 'jack mormons' are people who share some tenets of the mormon faith, but are not members of the LDS church.
I provided some insight into Mormon thought one day, and Hamas made some conclusions from my level of knowledge, and has provided his fundamentalist, polygamist, Aryan, red-stater, needles ever since.

Nightwish
06-16-2006, 03:04 PM
An interesting dynamic is surfacing in Arkansas. We're pretty dominated by the Pro-Life crowd, which is fine and dandy. Our governor is also on a children's health/anti-obesity/make-kids-health-nuts crusade, also fine and dandy. Now the two are mixing. He's kicking around legislation making it a crime to smoke while pregnant. There's also talk of pushing legislation to make it a crime to drink alcohol while pregnant.

This is interesting because many of the Pro-Life/Fetal Rights crowd are also the "government better not tell me I can't smoke" crowd. Conversely, many of the anti-smoking crowd are also of the "don't tell a woman what she can do with her body" ilk, so it could be an interesting conflict with even more interesting bedfellows as this enter's public debate.

Thoughts?I think most of the time when people say they don't want the government getting involved in peoples' personal lives, what they really mean is that they don't want the government getting involved in those aspects of their personal lives which they personally condone or engage in, but have little problem with the government getting involved in those aspects that they condemn ... as long as the government takes their side.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 03:21 PM
I think most of the time when people say they don't want the government getting involved in peoples' personal lives, what they really mean is that they don't want the government getting involved in those aspects of their personal lives which they personally condone or engage in, but have little problem with the government getting involved in those aspects that they condemn ... as long as the government takes their side.

:clap:

Nightwish
06-16-2006, 03:27 PM
And 'jack mormons' are people who share some tenets of the mormon faith, but are not members of the LDS church.
I thought the original orthodox Mormons weren't members of the LDS church either, are they? I was under the impression that the LDS church was something of a more modern reform movement within the Mormon church, but that the orthodox Mormon church still exists, especially in parts of Utah. Am I incorrect in that?

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 03:41 PM
I thought the original orthodox Mormons weren't members of the LDS church either, are they? I was under the impression that the LDS church was something of a more modern reform movement within the Mormon church, but that the orthodox Mormon church still exists, especially in parts of Utah. Am I incorrect in that?
The church started in New York, moved on to Ohio, then into Missouri, then back to Illinois. They didn't become 'Mormons' until Joseph Smith was lynched in Carthage, Illinois, and the church was left in turmoil.
The Mormons are the group who left for Salt Lake City, called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and to the best of my knowledge trace their leadership from Brigham Young, amongst the leadership of the early church and leader of the group who settled in SLC, to present.
There are fundamentalist sects that settled in various spots, but I'd characterize the LDS/Mormons as the trunk of the tree, though they have indeed reformed over the years.

go bowe
06-16-2006, 07:56 PM
I spoonerized seamy and unseemly. Shoot me, fugger!! :p
And 'jack mormons' are people who share some tenets of the mormon faith, but are not members of the LDS church.
I provided some insight into Mormon thought one day, and Hamas made some conclusions from my level of knowledge, and has provided his fundamentalist, polygamist, Aryan, red-stater, needles ever since.my lds friends here in independence, pretty much all samoan, call a backslider a jack mormon...

you know, the guy who goes to church on sunday while continuing to drink, smoke, go to the boat, etc.

or the guy who doesn't actually go to church regularly, just special occasions...

anyway, i don't quite get this educated educator and his predilection for using stereotypes in a most disparaging manner...

lawyer = bad
morman = bad
conservative = bad

what's next? not hamas' opinion = bad?

oh wait...

go bowe
06-16-2006, 08:01 PM
The church started in New York, moved on to Ohio, then into Missouri, then back to Illinois. They didn't become 'Mormons' until Joseph Smith was lynched in Carthage, Illinois, and the church was left in turmoil.
The Mormons are the group who left for Salt Lake City, called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and to the best of my knowledge trace their leadership from Brigham Young, amongst the leadership of the early church and leader of the group who settled in SLC, to present.
There are fundamentalist sects that settled in various spots, but I'd characterize the LDS/Mormons as the trunk of the tree, though they have indeed reformed over the years.some of my community of christ friends would argue that they are the trunk of the tree, having chosen to follow a descendant of joseph smith and remain behind in independence missouri, rather than travel onward to utah...

go bowe
06-16-2006, 08:14 PM
Holy crap....raiset the terror alert to red. This is as close to meltdown as I've ever seen go bo get.nah, i used to go off on gochiefs back in the day when he was spamming the board and acting the fool...

then there was american hero, who i gleefully helped toast...

and the unmentionable one when he came here to visit (no, not Tom Cash, the other more unmentionable one)...

i'm not always striving to be liked by everybody (is that even theoretically possible?)...

just most of the time...

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 08:29 PM
some of my community of christ friends would argue that they are the trunk of the tree, having chosen to follow a descendant of joseph smith and remain behind in independence missouri, rather than travel onward to utah...
I was referring to what was mainstream among those who headed west, the Mormons, or some other Utah 'orthodoxy.'
But you are travelling tender ground.
Want to know a secret? Nowadays, your Community of Christ friends would say "Joseph Who?" "Latter Day whaaa?" "Never heard of it."
You have any idea what a kick in the guts it is to meander over your Church's website and find out, without letting you know, that we no longer have any official creed, no belief structure, just some helpful hints others have found personally inspiring?

Our Faith and Beliefs

Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members. However, through the years various statements, such as those listed below, have been developed to present the generally accepted beliefs of the church. All people are encouraged to study the scriptures, to participate in the life and mission of the church, and to examine their own experiences as they grow in understanding and response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Nihilists? Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos."

go bowe
06-16-2006, 08:33 PM
I was referring to what was mainstream among those who headed west, the Mormons, or some other Utah 'orthodoxy.'
But you are travelling tender ground.
Want to know a secret? Nowadays, your Community of Christ friends would say "Joseph Who?" "Latter Day whaaa?" "Never heard of it."
You have any idea what a kick in the guts it is to meander over your Church's website and find out, without letting you know, that we no longer have any official creed, no belief structure, just some helpful hints others have found personally inspiring?man, i didn't know the transition from rlds to community of christ was that far-reaching...

but then my rlds friends don't talk a lot about their faith, at least around us pagans... :D :D :D

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 08:38 PM
man, i didn't know the transition from rlds to community of christ was that far-reaching...

but then my rlds friends don't talk a lot about their faith, at least around us pagans... :D :D :D
That, and they, . . . every so politely, . . edged out anyone who remembered what the old church was like, and were at all uncomfortable with their "like, just do your thing and love life, man" new-agism.
I don't mean to sound bitter, and if it weren't happening in my church I'd be all for it.
But it's like whatever that bird is that kicks all the eggs out of a nest some other momma bird built and takes it over as it's own.
"Hey, nice religion you got, only . . . we want to change everything, so I guess you better let us."

go bowe
06-16-2006, 08:42 PM
yeah, the splinter groups after they wanted to admit women to the priesthood or something like that were all over independence a few years back and wasn't there some controversey about having a female smith lead the church?

sounds like things went downhill fast after that...

sorry to hear that, bl...

patteeu
06-16-2006, 09:02 PM
yeah, the splinter groups after they wanted to admit women to the priesthood or something like that were all over independence a few years back and wasn't there some controversey about having a female smith lead the church?

sounds like things went downhill fast after that...

sorry to hear that, bl...

That should be a cautionary tale for those who would elect Hilary. ;)

go bowe
06-16-2006, 09:07 PM
That should be a cautionary tale for those who would elect Hilary. ;)too-shay, muthafuka...

too-****ing-shay...

jettio
06-16-2006, 09:50 PM
So if they made it illegal, would they put kids in state custody like is done for babies born with crack or meth in their system. I suppose a kid could stay in state custody until the mom has parenting classes and quits smoking just like is done for crack or meth. The agencies and courts are already stressed with the caseload for cases like that.

Or is it illegal where they would haul the mom in front of a judge and pay into the public coffers money that would be better spent for the home.

I don't see how that law could be anything but impractical.

Arkansas has made a lot of progress making sure that young girls in Arkansas use contraception when sleeping with their brothers, it should try a similar educaton program to reduce prenatal tobacco and alcohol use.

Adept Havelock
06-16-2006, 10:32 PM
Arkansas has made a lot of progress making sure that young girls in Arkansas use contraception when sleeping with their brothers, it should try a similar educaton program to reduce prenatal tobacco and alcohol use.

ROFL
Arkansas pre-nup conversation
"Dad, my fiance is a virgin".
"Hell son, if she ain't good enough for her family, what the hell makes you think she's good enough for ours?"

Everythings relative in Arkansas.

redbrian
06-18-2006, 08:52 PM
Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Normal gestation 38 to 42 weeks.

Survivability in premature births as early as 20 weeks.

Here is where the insanity of this debate can lead.

Let’s take this scenario which is not out of the realm of reality.

A woman with twins goes into labor at 20 weeks, one of the babies is born prematurely, labor is stopped and the other “fetus” stays in place.

One by definition is a baby with all the rights granted to humans, the other by definition is a fetus with no rights and can be terminated at the whim of the mother.

I can conceive of no logical argument granting one rights and denying the other.

Interesting side thought for all our jail house lawyers and card carrying members of the bar.
The premature baby will have to be hooked up to life support until such time as its lungs fully develop and the child can survive on its own.

Does the mother still have sole rights on terminating this child (pulling the plug) or do the father’s legal rights and the interest of society (courts) now also have an equal vote in this matter.

Note: This argument is based strictly on biology and the law and has nothing to do with left or right wing ideologies, try and contribute accordingly.