Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 28 of 28

Thread: and you thought the GA piercing law went against a woman's rights

  1. #26
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re:and you thought the GA piercing law went against a woman's rights

    Sometimes I don't know which scares me most. The fact that many qualified voters don't vote, or the fact that one day, some of them might actually vote.
    This is an EXTREMELY scary prospect - made even more scary by the increasing probability that millions of conservative moms & pops are likely to come out of the woodwork for this coming November election in response to all of the "over the top" liberal media events i.e. gay marriage, Richard Clark's book = congressional hearing ...


    Nevertheless, before we completely change the topic, my point is that whole mentality of an unborn child being a parasite, is completely ridiculous, and it goes along the same lines as Hitler's opinions and mentality, regardless of race in this case.
    When a woman decides to carry a child, she's carrying it so it WILL become something in the world. She provides what he/she needs until they're ready to live outside of her body.

    Well it is presently exactly that interpretation that an unborn child is a parasite without legal rights as a person which gives women the right to choose abortion.
    Now that unborn children have been accorded the right to life (because persons responsible for the death of unborn children can now be charged with murder) as a result of the Laci Law, it logically follows that doctors performing abortions will soon be flirting with murder charges.

  2. #27
    God/dess NinaDaisy's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:and you thought the GA piercing law went against a woman's rights

    These are scary times we're living in and I hope at least it mobilizes us to vote. The most important thing is to not accept everything the "mainstream" media force-feeds you and look for the stories they suppress. The independent media is a great source for this. Even foreign media is a good source. The BBC and The Guardian are both English (our military allies!) but run a lot of stories that get supressed here or new angles on stories that get twisted by the media here.

    Inform yourself and use that knowledge to protect your rights!
    "She has written so well, and marvellously well, that I was completely ashamed of myself as a writer...But this girl, who is to my knowledge very unpleasant and we might even say a high-grade bitch, can write rings around all of us who consider ourselves as writers"

    Ernest Hemingway on writer, aviation pioneer and horse trainer Beryl Markham


  3. #28
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re:and you thought the GA piercing law went against a woman's rights

    Well, the anti-abortion forces have wasted no time since the passage of the "Laci Law", which provided a legal precedent that an unborn fetus has the rights of a person. There are three federal lawsuits filed which will attempt to appeal the proposed federal ban of "partial birth abortions" nationwide, which are very likely to fail now in light of the 'Laci Law' precedent.

    The new wrinkle, of course, is that if the unborn child now has legal rights per the 'Laci Law', it can no longer be safely assumed that the right of the mother to avoid endangering her own life due to pregnancy complications automatically supersedes the right of the unborn child to live on (even if doing so would clearly risk killing the mother).

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal law banning a controversial abortion method will be challenged in court trials in three separate cities Monday as unconstitutional because it could put the health of expectant mothers at risk.

    Abortion providers will argue at federal trials in New York, San Francisco and Lincoln, Nebraska, that the law wrongfully ignores a U.S. Supreme Court requirement that abortion bans contain exceptions that allow the procedure if a woman's health is in danger.

    The ban targeted in these three cases stems from a congressional finding that the procedure, called a "partial birth abortion" by critics, is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health. The law, signed by President Bush on Nov. 5, 2003, applies to the destruction of a fetus after part of it is outside of the mother's body.

    "It is a question of whether Congress can make that determination," said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a constitutional and gender law professor at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, California.

    "It's the first time Congress has acted in this area, so it's significant," said Jacobs, who is not involved in the litigation. "It has usually been states that have passed bans, not the federal government."

    Opponents of the ban say it is the first of a pair of anti-abortion victories by the Republican-controlled Congress.

    The second came Thursday when the Senate approved a measure making it a separate offense to hurt the fetus in a crime against a pregnant woman.

    WOMAN'S HEALTH EXCEPTION

    In the three court fights over the so-called partial birth abortion ban, the plaintiffs cite a 2000 ruling by the Supreme Court that declared unconstitutional a Nebraska law banning the late-term abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute lacked a woman's-health exception.

    They also argue that the language in the federal law is so broad and vague it could apply to different kinds of procedures used as early as 13 weeks into a woman's pregnancy. Therefore, they say, it could prohibit some of the safest and most common methods of abortion used after the first trimester.

    Government lawyers disagree and say they will defend congressional findings that the ban targets a "violent practice" that is "painful and cruel to the partially born child."

    The judge in the Manhattan case, which is expected to be the longest trial at about four weeks, has previously issued several opinions unfavorable to the plaintiffs. In one, he is allowing a pediatrician to testify that a fetus may experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation.

    The New York suit is being brought by the National Abortion Federation, which is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada.

    If the ban withstands the legal challenges, it would constitute the first federal limit on a type of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling backing the right to an abortion.



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. OK, so I thought about it and instead of a piercing
    By the_dfb in forum Body Business
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-03-2007, 03:28 PM
  2. Rights?
    By lilstahr in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 03:24 PM
  3. Do we have any rights?
    By Jade in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-05-2005, 11:18 AM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-24-2005, 11:46 AM
  5. And you thought YOUR piercing was weird!
    By SCGirl in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-08-2004, 01:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •