Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:18:33 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <sam.715448934@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>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.

>The fetus was a person before Roe vs. Wade. And of course, it is Roe
>vs. Wade that we're challenging. 

Sorry.  This is not true.  Before Roe, each state could allow or deny
abortions as it desired.  SOME STATES ALLOWED ABORTIONS.  Do you understand
that?  So, you lose.

>I'll be glad to screw your leg back on now so you may stand. 
The only 'screw' is the one loose in your logic.

>>>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?

>>>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.

>And Griswold itself was drawn up out of nowhere. 

No, it wasn't.  It was based on the concept that married persons were
entitled to privacy.  That right WAS NEVER CEDED to the federal
government, and therefore was retained by the people.  Do you think
contraceptives should be illegal??

>Ever heard of judicial restraint? The principle which says laws and
>legislation from the Supreme Court, are not drawn out of what they'd
>like to SEE in the Constitution, but what is THERE? 

Did you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments that say that WHAT IS WRITEN
THERE IS NOT THE SUM-TOTAL OF THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE??

>So we can safely say both Griswold and Roe vs. Wade have been brought
>up out of nowhere, as Supreme Court decisions. They had no existing
>basis in the Constitution, to create them. 

There doesn't need to be.  The government and courts DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS!
Go read the Federalist papers, etc.  You'll learn something.


>>>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?

>Like I said, take that to the ballot box and see how America responds
>to it. 

The majority should not define what is legal and illegal in all cases.
This would simply be another form of tyranny.  That's why the founders
set up a REPUBLIC.

>If you get 1% support, I'll be blown out of my socks, man. If you get
>50% support, indeed you need to prick yourself and wake up. 

I'd be willing to bet that a vote on consensual sex between consulting
adults would pass by a WIDE margin, except perhaps in that fantasy land you
live in.


>Control freaks? Go tell the DEA as they're busting into a marijuana
>user's house and are invading their private lives, that they're
>"control freaks."  
I don't disagree with this.

>In describing you, the word "Anarchist" comes to mind. 
Minarchist is probably better.  I don't think the government has any
business telling me what to ingest, to do with my body, what or how to
worship, etc, etc.  Limited police forces, fire protection, military for
self-defence are ok.  Limited government...remember, the government that
governs best governs least.


>And if you hire Judges to strike them down, we'll just hire Judges to
>re-enact them. 
I don't want judges enacting laws.  I want them PROTECTING freedom.  The
same as I want for Congress and the Presidency.

>After all, didn't we hear BILL CLINTON say he'd use a LITMUS TEST? 
Assuming of course that I'm voting for Clinton.  Which I'm not.  Nor am I
voting for Bush.

>No one appointed me. The appointees are the VOTERS. 
So, if the voters change their minds, what will you do?  If the 'Freedom of
Choice Act' passes, and President Clinton (who I expect to win) signs it,
then you'll go away, since the 'voters' have spoken!!!!  Right?


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

>'Maturity' is irrelevant when you take this to the voters. 

You are so hung up on the voters...who protects YOUR rights if the 'voters'
decide to take them away?

>Obviously, the age of 16 for drivers and the age of 21 for drinking,
>is arbitrary. Why not strike them down, too? 
Fair enough.  18 was the drinking age before...it was changed only under
blackmail by the Feds.  How about some form of maturity/responsibility
test?

>INCONSISTENCY rules your postings. 
Are you prepared to live by whatever laws the 'voters' enact?  FOCA?

 -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