From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:48:54 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <adams.714751932@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>===============================================================================
>>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>>>	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
>>>		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
>>>===============================================================================
>>
>>Chaney, I told you in posts and finally in email to drop this or respond to 
>>my challenge.  You said in private email that you were going to respond.  
>>Now, either respond (I'm including the post one more time) or drop this sig.  
>>Get it?

>>For example, you do NOT have the privacy to beat your wife or your kids at
>>home, but you do have the privacy to use (or not use) contraception.  The
>>zones of privacy are being defined each time the court makes such rulings.
>>In some cases, they have limited it.  In upholding the Georgia sodomy laws,
>>they limited it (wrongly, IMHO).  In Roe, the expanded it from
>>contraception in Griswold, to the rest of reproduction.

>So they basically said that it's okay to kill a human life as long as
>it's done in private and they're too young. 

That is NOT what I said at all.  Privacy rulings do not allow you to harm a
person.  Please show me the law that defines a fetus as a person.  Can't
find one?  Oops.  You lose.

>Does the word DISCRIMINATION ring a bell? Thought so, folks. 
Not at all.  There is NO PERSON being discriminated againt here under the
law.  You have been told this time and time again and you continuall refuse
to realise this.  The law does NOT define the fetus as a person, therefore
it has no rights.  Comprende?

>>Enter the Florida case.  A 15 year old girl consented to sex with a 19 year
>>old man.  The judge ruled, as I understand, that within the right to
>>privacy
>>is the right to consent to sex.  Privacy rights DO NOT DEPEND ON ROE.
>>You've
>>shown that in your chart above.  Your chart could look like this:
>>
>>         /----- Roe v. Wade
>>====Griswold=========
>>         \----- Statutory Rape Laws

>Not according to JERRY LOCKETT, Adams. 
I don't think you have a clue as to how constitutional law works.
Rulings are based on previous rulings.  Roe absolutely depends on Griswold.
Without Griswold, Roe wasn't possible.  It's like building a house and
trying to leave out the first 2 feet of bricks from the ground up, but
still putting up the house.

Locket's ruling does NOT depend on Roe.  It depends on Griswold, the
finding of the 'privacy right' (actually, the RESTORATION of the privacy
right, since rights are not defined by the Constitution, but certain things
are ceded to the government with the CONSENT of the goverened).

>His ruling was NOT 
>>         /----- Roe v. Wade
>>====Griswold=========
>>         \----- Statutory Rape Laws

>His ruling was: 

>>>         /----- abortion rights
>>>====privacy=========
>>>         \----- adult/child sex
>>
>>Two branches of privacy emminating from Griswold.  If the Judge cited Roe
>>in support, then he is actually also citing Griswold.  If there is a right
>>to privacy, it must be extended to those persons who are capable of making
>>their own decisions in those areas.  Some 15 year old girls are capable of
>>deciding they want to engage in sex.  Some aren't.

>Then take it up with Judge Lockett, dude, not me. If you were actually
>genuinely RIGHT about this, then he would, being a FAR SMARTER and
>BETTER READ Judge than you are, would have stated GRISWOLD explicitly.

Sitting on the Federal Bench is not guarantee of intelligence or anything
else.  The picture you drew of abortion rights coming from privacy is
EXACTLY what I said.  GRISWOLD IS THE PRIVACY RULING YOU FOOL.

>Either way, Judge Lockett's ruling, as he ruled it, justifies my .sig. 
Not at all.  Only in your severely twisted mind.

>>>According to Judge Lockett, to have abortion rights, you must
>>>invalidate statutory rape laws. Which means adults can have sex with
>>>kids if the kids say OK.
>>No.  If you have PRIVACY rights, then you have limits on government action
>>when there are two consenting persons engaged in an action that the courts
>>feel falls under privacy limitations.

>I sure hope you're willing to carry that reasoning, Adams. It would
>mean that because both parties consented, laws against incest could be
>struck down. 
Bingo.  Tell me why the law should prevent sex between mature, consenting
parties?

>That and the North American Man Boy Love Association would achieve all
>of its goals, particularly, "Eight is Too Late." Simply because the
>little kid consented to it. 
NAMBLA?  You must be Clayton Cramer in real life.  I should have known.  An
8 year is not able, in my opinoin, to properly judge.  A 15 year old might
be.  And I know 21 year olds who aren't able.  Age is ARBITRARY.  Don't you
understand that?  That is the point that everyone here keeps making, but
you control freaks just don't understand that.

>Fact is, fool, you can't take the reasoning you mentioned above, past
>the legal SIDEWALK, much less downtown to Town Hall, before being
>LYNCHED by the voters, the media, and hopefully it won't happen, but
>also the angry mob who'll wait for you to take that adult/child sex,
>incest and NAMBLA "privacy package" that results from your reasoning,
>and actually pass it as legitimate law.  
Oh I can't?  You seem to keep missing the 'mature' part required for
consenting to sex.  Not surprising from one so immature.


Once again, who exactly appointed you to decide at exactly what age and with
whom people may have intimate relations?

Please explain how 18 can be such a good 'arbitrary age' when maturity has
nothing to do with chronological age.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion