|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 110 of 331:
| 
Feb 27 17:26 UTC 2006 |
re #105
I think, in general, such people have deeply shameful feelings
about sex. It's a difficult area for them.
If this is true, then why do such people report more satisfying sex
lives than do non- such peopld??
What such people report this? The first person I think of when I think of
a prolife nut is the daughter of Phelps. I think of a kook with a picket sign
showing photos of a dead foetus standing in front of a clinic. Those people
don't have sex. Those people are full of hate and spittle and have no
shortage of ignorance except what it says in their bible which was interpreted
5 times to them from Germans and English translator white guys.
|
richard
|
|
response 111 of 331:
|
Feb 27 17:38 UTC 2006 |
re #109 if you cross a state line and commit a murder it is a federal crime,
but it is not a crime until the murder is committed. illinois could not
prevent a girl from going to Indiana to get an abortion, they could only
arrest her when she got back. If they could prove she had actually had an
abortion.
you simply can't start arresting people crossing state lines based on stated
intent or hearsay, this is a FREE country.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 331:
|
Feb 27 17:45 UTC 2006 |
Indiana also couldn't arrest a doctor in Illinois for performing an abortion
on an Indiana resident. Indiana doesn't have the right to enforce their laws
on non-residents. You can't make abortion illegal on a state by state basis
for the same reason you couldn't make prohibition state by state. Because
you can't stop a free american citizen from crossing a state line to get
drunk.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 113 of 331:
|
Feb 27 17:51 UTC 2006 |
If it's a girl (as opposed to a woman) then there are things that would
likely be done, or at least attempted, at the federal level. There have
already been attempts in Congress to pass legislation making it a federal
crime to assist a minor in crossing state lines for the purpose of
avoiding state restrictions on abortion. Currently this is mostly about
reporting requirements but if there were a total ban then the same basic
idea would still apply.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 114 of 331:
|
Feb 27 17:59 UTC 2006 |
Conspiracy is a crime. If Abortion is illegal in Michigan, and you go
to Ohio to get one, it is conceivable that Michigan could charge you
with conspiracy. Not sure if that would hold up though.
|
richard
|
|
response 115 of 331:
|
Feb 27 18:49 UTC 2006 |
re #114 how could Michigan charge you for getting an abortion in Ohio, unless
they could prove you had had one. Which they couldn't do without medical
records. You need physical evidence of a crime.
,
|
crimson
|
|
response 116 of 331:
|
Feb 27 18:56 UTC 2006 |
Re #113: "You can't make abortion illegal on a state by state basis
for the same reason you couldn't make prohibition state by state."
You couldn't make Prohibition state by state? Isn't that exactly what the
21st Amendment did? "The transportation or importation into any state,
territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquours, *in violation of the laws thereof*, is hereby
prohibited." (section 2 of Amendment 21)
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:17 UTC 2006 |
prohibition was repealed because it didn't work. It didn't stop people from
drinking, in fact it INCREASED drinkning. No laws outlawing abortion would
stop abortions from happening, all you do is create a black market for them
and force people to cross state lines.
|
crimson
|
|
response 118 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:21 UTC 2006 |
Er, that was re #112. You said that Prohibition *couldn't be made on a state
by state basis*, and I pointed out that that was exactly what the 21st
amendment did. It would take an amendment or a federal law to make "crossing
a state line to have an abortion performed that would be illegal in the home
state" a crime, but that doesn't mean that abortion law couldn't be made on
the state level.
|
richard
|
|
response 119 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:27 UTC 2006 |
No state can have a prohibition law, because as long as you have enough other
places to go to drink and buy drinks, whats the point
|
richard
|
|
response 120 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:29 UTC 2006 |
no federal law to make crossing a state law to have an abortion performed
would pass Constitutional muster, and you could never pass a constitutional
amendment because you'd never get 3/4's of the state legislatures to agree
to ANY anti-abortion amendment.
|
crimson
|
|
response 121 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:30 UTC 2006 |
Whether such a law would *work* is irrelevant to whether such a law *could
be legally passed*. Besides, many such laws were put into effect: q.v.
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_21p9.asp
for one example.
|
crimson
|
|
response 122 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:32 UTC 2006 |
#120 slipped.
Re #120: I'm not convinced that such a law would be unconstitutional -- it's
simply a transfer of authority from the federal government to the states --
and I'm pretty sure that many states would pass such an amendment because it
would set a good precedent for states' rights (contravening the decision on
wine importation not too long ago).
|
richard
|
|
response 123 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:41 UTC 2006 |
re #122 most states, certainly more than 1/4 of them, would never pass such
a law because there are at least that many states where the majority of voters
are women, and where vast majorities are pro-choice. My state, New York, will
NEVER pass an amendment constitutionally outlawing abortion in anyway, it
won't happen in yours or my lifetime.
|
richard
|
|
response 124 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:44 UTC 2006 |
In fact the only way to enforce laws outlawing abortion would be to have
draconian policies, such as requiring doctors who diagnose a woman as pregnant
to report her name to the authorities, and to notify authorities if the doctor
thinks the woman is a risk of having an abortion and needs to be taken into
protective custody for the first few months of her pregnancy. You have NO
IDEA how expensive, and OPRESSIVE, such things would be.\
|
happyboy
|
|
response 125 of 331:
|
Feb 27 19:58 UTC 2006 |
but jesus wants it that way, so it's ok.
|
slynne
|
|
response 126 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:04 UTC 2006 |
oh come on, richard. You dont think anyone is actually trying to keep
middle class and upper middle class women from getting their abortions,
do you? I mean, ok, there are probably some people who think that
making abortion illegal will keep the privileged class from having them
but those are generally the same people who think making drugs illegal
will keep the privileged class from having them.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 127 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:18 UTC 2006 |
> re #114 how could Michigan charge you for getting an abortion in
> Ohio, unless they could prove you had had one.
They couldn't, and not because they couldn't prove you had one, but
because you had it in another jurisdiction. I'm not sure why you're
asking me this, unless you didn't fully read 114. You see, conspiracy
is something different, as it is a plan to commit a crime.
If I plan to murder Richard while in Michigan, and then travel to New
York to commit the crime, I am guilty of murder in New York, and guilty
of conspiracy to commit murder in Michigan. That is how I understand
the concept of conspiracy, anyway. It doesn't even require the actual
crime be committed.
Now, is the test for something to be conspiracy take into consideration
the illegality of the act in the state being conspired in, or the state
where the supposed crime actually happens? IANAL, so I can only
theorize.
|
richard
|
|
response 128 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:38 UTC 2006 |
yes but how could you make a "conspiracy" case in an abortion, when you won't
know its a conspiracy until its taken place. "conspiracy to commit abortion"
would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court absent the
abortion actually having had taken place. If I drive a woman across the state
line, how are you going to PROVE I knew she was going to have an abortion?
|
richard
|
|
response 129 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:39 UTC 2006 |
slynne, you are right about people with money still being able to get
abortions. Just imagine, an airline special, "fly to Jamaica, get an
abortion, enjoy three nights afterwords on the beach, and enjoy the best
resorts, all for one low price...the abortion special"
|
richard
|
|
response 130 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:41 UTC 2006 |
and nharmon, are you going to pay all the extra taxes that will be needed to
pay for all the new courts and judges and lawyers and jails to enforce
"abortion conspiracy" laws?
|
slynne
|
|
response 131 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:50 UTC 2006 |
resp:129 For those of us in border states it would be even easier. If
abortion were ever made illegal in Michigan, Ontario would have a
pretty big out-patient abortion industry.
|
richard
|
|
response 132 of 331:
|
Feb 27 20:57 UTC 2006 |
if they outlawed abortion, they'd have to outlaw home pregnancy kits because
they couldn't enforce the law if women could find out they are pregnant
without being in the presence of a doctor who could report it the authorities.
|
klg
|
|
response 133 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:02 UTC 2006 |
"would never pass such a law because there are at least that many
states where the majority of voters are women"
Check that logic.
According to the Wirthlin poll, women asked where they "would place
themselves on the abortion issue," 55 answered "pro-life," or
supporting a total ban on abortion or restrictions limiting it to cases
of rape, incest or when the mother's life is a stake. In contrast,
according to this poll, 43 percent of those questioned described
themselves as "pro-choice," in favor of retaining legal abortion at
least for the first three months of pregnancy.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 134 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:08 UTC 2006 |
Interesting definitions of pro-life and pro-choice.
Are you pro-Linux (supporting a prohibition on windows), or pro-Windows
(supporting both to coexist)?
|