NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35797

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 7.6 KB | 192 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!nextnet!chaneysa
From: [e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: California State University Sacramento
References: <adams.714751932@spssig> <[e-mail]> <sam.715448934@spssig>
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:12:44 GMT
Lines: 179

In article <sam.715448934@spssig> [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
>[e-mail] (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.

I'll be glad to screw your leg back on now so you may stand.

>>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?

Well, the law did NOT define African Americans as persons, either.

But it was still discrimination.

Comprende'.

>>>         /----- 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.

And Griswold itself was drawn up out of nowhere.

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?

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.

Unless, of course, you want to play Scrabble and, by mixing the 14th
Amendment's letters in wierd ways, come up with Griswold & Roe vs.
Wade.

Yeah, that's it...

And besides, whether or not your statement is correct...
Did Judge Lockett mention Griswold?

They didn't even mention Griswold in Roe vs. Wade.

>>His ruling was NOT
>>>         /----- Roe v. Wade
>>>====Griswold=========
>>>         \----- Statutory Rape Laws
>
>>His ruling was:
>
>>>>         /----- abortion rights
>>>>====privacy=========
>>>>         \----- adult/child sex
>>>
>>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.

HEY, IDIOT.

I was referring to Judge Lockett's ruling, not Griswold. Judge Lockett
didn't even refer to Griswold. Like I said, take up this "FOOL" shit
with Judge Lockett, not me.

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

Listen, Adams: If you don't like the adult/child sex / abortion rights
connection, blame it on Judge Lockett. When it is reversed, I'll
remove the .sig. But seeing as the mistake was made and it was made by
a Judge and NOT me, just live with it.

>>>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?

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

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.

>>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.

Well, if that 8 year old can prove they're "mature" enough, then
NAMBLA would be okay, by your reasoning. Then again, your opinion is
that they can't. Notwithstanding the random variable of the Human, of
course.

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."

In describing you, the word "Anarchist" comes to mind.

>>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, like I said, if you take that to the voters, it won't mean
a damned thing whether or not the participants are mature. You still
won't get that law enacted.

And if you hire Judges to strike them down, we'll just hire Judges to
re-enact them.

After all, didn't we hear BILL CLINTON say he'd use a LITMUS TEST?

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

No one appointed me. The appointees are the VOTERS.

And you don't have that, kiddo. Not on parental consent, not on
adult/child sex, not on legalized incest or drugs, not on any of
that which you could call "privacy" rights.

Comprende'?

>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.

Obviously, the age of 16 for drivers and the age of 21 for drinking,
is arbitrary. Why not strike them down, too?

INCONSISTENCY rules your postings.

=============================================================================
          Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex!
            With the little girl's consent, of course.
         Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
=============================================================================
|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              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.