|
nanomagnetic
cascadian



Registered: 12/26/09
Posts: 218
Loc: The Rose City
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
I thought Roe v Wade gave a window on viability? Plus, I don't think viability has been in the discussion for some time now. It's all about murder, and rights, and personhood these days.
-------------------- Being an ant is the worst mindfuck ever. They can never hold on to any memories, or come up with any real ideas, or even understand what the fuck is going on, ever. The Century of the Self: Happiness Machines; The Engineering of Consent; There's a Policeman Inside All Our Heads, He Must be Destroyed; Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time. ~carl sagan
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
He picked 6 months as a threshold for "only to save the mother" based on viability.
As to murder and all that the argument is no different today than it was then. I know. I was there.
--------------------
|
nanomagnetic
cascadian



Registered: 12/26/09
Posts: 218
Loc: The Rose City
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
I don't know. The text of the decision seems to allow a cutoff range: twenty to twenty-eight weeks.
-------------------- Being an ant is the worst mindfuck ever. They can never hold on to any memories, or come up with any real ideas, or even understand what the fuck is going on, ever. The Century of the Self: Happiness Machines; The Engineering of Consent; There's a Policeman Inside All Our Heads, He Must be Destroyed; Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time. ~carl sagan
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
I don't think that anyone should be made to have a baby at 13, which is actually what the implications of this reform are.
no it's not, the implications of this legislation are that mom and dad need to pay for the abortion because they're obviously such shitty parents they couldnt teach their 13yo girl about birth control or abstinence, how is this forcing a 13yo to have a kid?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
nanomagnetic said:
Thirteen is a little young.
thirteen was an average age for marriage and child birth until the early 20th century in this country, it's still normal in some parts of the world
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
I never said the implications are that all 13 year olds would be made to have a baby, but that some would. Incidentally your approach would render unable those most likely to have kids who are a drain on society to get an abortion. Invariably there is an implication here that some 13 year olds will not be able to get them.
The sums of cost here are inconsequential, the motivations of this reform are not financial but religious.
Also it's funny to see the same people here who wanted Assange to be extradited to Sweden (and then to the US) for banging without a condom, defending stat rape.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
The decision specifically dealt with when the state's interest in throwing people in jail and causing trouble was signifigant enough to surmount the patient's privacy interest in being not thrown in jail and troubled. The different ranges were outlined and applicable to certain constitutional restrictions, i.e. after 6 months or so it wouldn't be unconstitutional per se to prohibit abortion of the fetus and throw everyone in jail and yada yada yada in the normal course. In different circumstances, such as when the mother's right to life just narrowly wins out over the state's interest in screwing with people, the calculus is different.
Either way, the reasoning was pretty arbitrary, and as zappa notes, begs far more nuanced consideration with the changing realities than it will get.
Quote:
nanomagnetic said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
jimbotron said:
Quote:
let the parents of the 13yo pay... statutory rape isnt something pushed on someone that was unwilling, it's 2 willing participants and is only 'rape' in name
First we've got a defense of pedophilia.
with convoluted logic like that, no wonder you stay confused
Thirteen is a little young. It could definitely be considered pedophilia.
And statutory rape isn't meant to be "rape in name only." An adult often has power or authority over an adolescent. The statutory rape laws, fundamentally, criminalize abusing that relationship for sex.
Nonsense and a perfect example of what Seuss refers to.
Statutory rape does not hing upon whether someone is an adult and the other party an adolescent who's relationship with the adult was abused for sex. It is almost never of any relevance whatsoever- meerly a strict liability construction regardless of merit or harm in the act and an abuse of the term "rape".
|
ScavengerType



Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: johnm214]
#13874080 - 01/29/11 11:47 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Look, I'm not an expert on stat rape law in the US but I've never heard of minor on minor sex prosecution (ever anywhere), even in the most backwards of states.
like I said source?
I've heard of minors being charged with CP but that's different with regard to this discussion.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I never said the implications are that all 13 year olds would be made to have a baby, but that some would.
well guess what, some are already having knocked up and being 'made to have babies'
Quote:
Incidentally your approach would render unable those most likely to have kids who are a drain on society to get an abortion.
incorrect, it simply means they'd need to find another source for funding, maybe they should try that 24yo they were fucking, I'm sure he'd love to destroy the evidence of his crimes for only a few hundred bucks or maybe they could get it from their parents, lord knows the parents should have had that talk with their darling little debbie long before she got knocked up but since they didnt, they now have to deal with the embarrassment of their inaction as well
Quote:
Invariably there is an implication here that some 13 year olds will not be able to get them.
you mean like it is already, some 13yo girls are unable to get abortions so it seems nothing actually changes, why should I be penalized for the mistakes of others, let the parents deal with their problem children
Quote:
The sums of cost here are inconsequential, the motivations of this reform are not financial but religious.
well surely you have some actual evidence to back that up
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I never said the implications are that all 13 year olds would be made to have a baby, but that some would. Incidentally your approach would render unable those most likely to have kids who are a drain on society to get an abortion. Invariably there is an implication here that some 13 year olds will not be able to get them.
Like I said to jimbo, you pay for it.Quote:
The sums of cost here are inconsequential, the motivations of this reform are not financial but religious.
This atheist says bullshit. Quote:
Also it's funny to see the same people here who wanted Assange to be extradited to Sweden (and then to the US) for banging without a condom, defending stat rape.
Nobody here is, as far as I can tell, defending statutory rape. And that isn't what Asshole is accused of.
--------------------
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
I think you are missing something here prisoner, most people who are on medicare don't have a lot of money and will have difficulty getting the finances together for an abortion. The practical effect of this is that this bill and you in your support of it aim to strip these children of the rights of protection from statutory rape and it's physiological implications. Your proposed solution, by your own logic and admission would either not work (they would be forced to have a rape baby) or strip the child of the right to have their rapist charged. Basically you are saying that the laws of pedophilia should be enforced based on how much money the man or girl has. Not to mention that this would put people like this in a situation of having to claim falsely of rape in order to receive one. Would a hospital conducted rape examination be required to secure an abortion under these laws? Will real rape victims be denied if they lack this proof?
How much will all these added costs and social impacts add up compared to a relatively cheap medical procedure, even if you only look at the immediate future? It is not fiscally sound because before even looking at those added litigation and medical costs single mothers in many places automatically qualify for financial assistance if they have no source of income. They can in some cases receive higher than double the cost of an abortion in assistance for having a child in one month. I'm not sure about the US (varies from state to state) but in Canada these benefits are only terminated after two years. It would take an astronomically low number of these people applying for these benefits to actually save any money at all. That's ignoring those factors and the shear price that a child who grows up unwanted extorts on the social system in it's lifetime (for further info just read the beginning of Freakonomics). In effect you have to be out of your damn mind to think this will save any money whatsoever.
However it will prevent people who need them from getting abortions, a major goal of Catholics, fundamentalist Christians and other christian nutbags.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Feel free to buy all the poor people abortions you want.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I think you are missing something here prisoner, most people who are on medicare don't have a lot of money and will have difficulty getting the finances together for an abortion.
why are 13yo girls on medicare, dont their parents work or are the parents more parasites, dont their medicare parents teach them about birth control and abstinence, are they refused the chance to learn it in schools by their parents? I recall sex ed being taught in 5th grade when I was a kid and I live in the bible belt
what's cheaper, condoms or abortion? what has a more lasting effect on a young girl, abortions or safe sex?
where should our focus be?
Quote:
The practical effect of this is that this bill and you in your support of it aim to strip these children of the rights of protection from statutory rape and it's physiological implications. Your proposed solution, by your own logic and admission would either not work (they would be forced to have a rape baby) or strip the child of the right to have their rapist charged.
again I believe you're confused
Quote:
Basically you are saying that the laws of pedophilia should be enforced based on how much money the man or girl has.
no, that seems to be your statement, of course if you can show me where I made it, feel free to do so
Quote:
Will real rape victims be denied if they lack this proof?
why would a real rape victim not want to have a rapist prosecuted, why would the parents of the 'victim' of statutory rape not want to have the 'rapist' prosecuted as well
Quote:
How much will all these added costs and social impacts add up compared to a relatively cheap medical procedure, even if you only look at the immediate future? It is not fiscally sound
you're right about one thing, state funded abortion isnt fiscally sound, nor are social programs that allow for us to support 'breeders' that do nothing more than increase their government benefit check through their breeding programs
now why must you assume that just because I dont want to pay for someones abortion that I must want them producing offspring, I'm all for throwing them down a flight of stairs, call it punishment for making stupid mistakes that they've surely already been warned against from various sources including TV, billboards, school, parents, etc... maybe by the second time they'll have learned a valuable lesson
Quote:
However it will prevent people who need them from getting abortions, a major goal of Catholics, fundamentalist Christians and other christian nutbags.
who needs an abortions more than they need to practice safe sex, if I make a 'mistake', it comes out of my pocket, if you make a mistake, why should I still have to pay for it, I had nothing to do with your improprieties
I see you're all about keeping women as uneducated fuck dolls that have as many abortions as possible instead if educating them on the practice of safe sex
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
who needs an abortions more than they need to practice safe sex, if I make a 'mistake', it comes out of my pocket, if you make a mistake, why should I still have to pay for it, I had nothing to do with your improprieties
I'd much rather pay the cost of an abortion than the cost of raising another breeder's welfare project. If a couple cannot afford an abortion, then there is a pretty good chance that they cannot afford to raise a child.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Larrythescaryrex
teardrop on the fire



Registered: 07/19/00
Posts: 11,004
Loc: further down the spiral
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Seuss]
#13879365 - 01/30/11 10:02 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
interesting point, suess
-------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Seuss]
#13879385 - 01/30/11 10:05 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
who needs an abortions more than they need to practice safe sex, if I make a 'mistake', it comes out of my pocket, if you make a mistake, why should I still have to pay for it, I had nothing to do with your improprieties
I'd much rather pay the cost of an abortion than the cost of raising another breeder's welfare project. If a couple cannot afford an abortion, then there is a pretty good chance that they cannot afford to raise a child.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 48 minutes
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Seuss]
#13879831 - 01/31/11 12:03 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
who needs an abortions more than they need to practice safe sex, if I make a 'mistake', it comes out of my pocket, if you make a mistake, why should I still have to pay for it, I had nothing to do with your improprieties
I'd much rather pay the cost of an abortion than the cost of raising another breeder's welfare project. If a couple cannot afford an abortion, then there is a pretty good chance that they cannot afford to raise a child.
Exactly, if anything, the abortions should be mandatory.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Seuss]
#13880418 - 01/31/11 05:28 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: I'd much rather pay the cost of an abortion than the cost of raising another breeder's welfare project. If a couple cannot afford an abortion, then there is a pretty good chance that they cannot afford to raise a child.
yet another reason to cut welfare since those breeders often get knocked up for the sole purpose of increasing the welfare check
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> yet another reason to cut welfare since those breeders often get knocked up for the sole purpose of increasing the welfare check
Yep... I always thought that should work opposite... more kids you have, the less money you get. Of course the bleeding heart liberals scream , "Oh teh children, you heartless bastard!" Seems odd that we reward people for having children that they cannot afford to raise. Since I am a fascist corporate shill, I might as well advocate the use of Implanon (or the like) if you are female, past puberty, and on welfare.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Seuss]
#13880457 - 01/31/11 05:55 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm COINTEL PRO 
the BC implant is a great idea but shouldnt that be extended to the 13yo that's out fucking all the neighborhood boys as well so she can get her own welfare check... for some reason I tend to believe that anything you do to stop the government assistance breeding program would be called unconstitutional by some liberal judge
|
|