From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Summary: The Adams Family mourns a loss. 
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:14:54 GMT

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?

"Get it?" 

Whoo, big strong words. 

>>Jerry Lockett of Florida based his ruling, which invalidates statutory
>>rape laws, on the right to privacy which invalidated parental consent
>>abortion laws. Judge Jerry Lockett of Florida said:
>
>>         /----- abortion rights
>>====privacy=========
>>         \----- adult/child sex
>
>The right to privacy was pretty much set up by Griswold vs. Connecticut,
>which prevented the State of Connecticut from denying contraceptives to
>married couples.  Granted, the statute was old & the case required a
>complete set-up, but the case still stands.  What, in my opinion, Griswold
>said is that there is a basic right to privacy that we have, that the
>government may not infringe upon without proper due-process AND an
>overriding state interest.
>
>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. 

Does the word DISCRIMINATION ring a bell? Thought so, folks. 

>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. 

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.

The fact is, he didn't. Could it be that your premise is either wrong,
or could it be that he was wrong? 

Either way, Judge Lockett's ruling, as he ruled it, justifies my .sig. 

>>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. 

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. 

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.  

>>Now, with all your posturing, DISPROVE WHAT I SAY FOR ONCE.
>Done.  Goodbye.
>
>>I know you will dodge this and I know you won't address it, because
>>you can't disprove it, so I'll repeat this post several times, so
>>everyone else can see how you dodge it.
>You can stop posting now.

You can now rinse the cobwebs out of your skull. 

>>===============================================================================
>>       Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex!
>>===============================================================================
>Liar.

Liar liar pants on fire. 

Wow! What a flame! 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34406 alt.abortion.inequity:3407