|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
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)?
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:12 UTC 2006 |
re #133 first of all, Wirthlin is a republican pollster, and the poll you are
quoting was almost certainly a push poll, and second of all it is one thing
to be pro-life and ENTIRELY a different thing to support a constitutional
amendment making it illegal nationally. You can in fact be pro-life and not
support federal laws outlawing it, many people are.
|
richard
|
|
response 136 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:22 UTC 2006 |
you know, klg is really a tax and spend liberal, because he wants all this
extra government infrastructure and government spending to enforce laws
outlawing abortion, which could only be done by massively raising taxes.
You'd have to hire more lawyers, judges, build more jails, have more
trials. It would be a HUGE increase in the size of government in a state
if abortion were to be illegal there.
Increasing the size, and need, for government should be against the
principles of any true conservative. klg is a tax and spend liberal, who
wants to dramatically increase domestic spending.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 137 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:43 UTC 2006 |
Whether you find these definitions of pro-life and pro-choice "interesting"
is not really relevant. They are the commonly accepted ones used today,
as described on places like Wikipedia and the OED. If you want to
invent your own personal definitions, which seem to be based on straw-man
oversimplifications like "pro-choice means that a baby is the same as a
pimple" then that's certainly your right but it sounds silly.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 138 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:57 UTC 2006 |
resp:134 Are you having a problem with the word 'choice'? Pro-Choice
people want a woman to have a choice as to whether she terminates a
pregnancy or goes through with it. Keeping a pregnacy IS a choice.
Meaning supporting the choice of a 15 year old girl who doesn't want an
abortion- even if some might think that's the best option. It also means
supporting the choice of a married woman with 4 kids who doesn't want to
have any more children (and we'd hope her hsuband agreed with her). It's
all about allowing the individual to choose.
Pro-abortion would be more like saying the 15 year old should have an
abortion whether she wants it or not simply because she's too young to
decide. And might also think that it's too bad that married woman didn't
abort more of her children.
Lil bit of a difference there methinks.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 139 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:59 UTC 2006 |
"Sounds like we're a-gonna have to restrict interstate travel
for pregant women."
james dobson
|
twenex
|
|
response 140 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:08 UTC 2006 |
Conservatives don't have principles. Beyond "if it's new, oppose it".
|
happyboy
|
|
response 141 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:15 UTC 2006 |
thank you for agreeing with me
jeffery rollins...
love in christ,
james dobson
|
tod
|
|
response 142 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:20 UTC 2006 |
<hums On Angels Wings in steamroom with Ashcroft>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 143 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:21 UTC 2006 |
/ashcroft gives you a sweaty hug.
"Let the EAAAAGLE SOAAAAAAR..."
|
tod
|
|
response 144 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:27 UTC 2006 |
Ashcroft=one out of 535 members of House and Senate to receive the greatest
amount of financial support from Monsanto. (He received 5x the amount of
money as the congressman finishing 2nd.)
Enjoy your canola oil!!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 145 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:50 UTC 2006 |
is canola on the genetically modified foods list?
|