"Fathers By Force" Form Eight New Chapters in SD
Fathers By Force, a rapist paternity rights advocacy organization, has announced the formation of eight new chapters in South Dakota, in the wake of their much-publicized victory there. "We just want to raise awareness on the issue of rapists' rights." said Alex Braun, an inmate organizer and activist. "They say every child a wanted child. Well, we say every father a wanted father. And apparently, the courts agree with us." Braun expressed concerns about plans for an informal "underground railroad" to help women escape the state. "Hopefully, other states will put the kibosh on that by passing an amendment." Braun's group is also hopeful that the Bush Administration will finally have an incentive to address lax border control. "They can't let these women just leave, after all."
Republican strategists find the idea of an amendment promising for upcoming midterm elections: 'Nothing gets states rights people out in droves on election day like the lure of a constitutional amendment!"
264 comments:
1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»Yes, it's a terrible thing what they're doing in S.Dakota, i mean trying to save unborn children like that..... who do they think they are? Next you're gonna tell me they want to recite the pledge of allegiance in school.... Bastards!
According to Scalia, roe was a bad decision. There is no "right" to abortion in the constitution. I'm a big Scalia fan. (surprise) Besides roe barely exists anymore. the most important part of roe was the trimester deal, that's why it was able to get through. That went the way of the dinousaur, and now we're killing babies as they're being born, literally seconds before in some cases. To me that's the problem. not the "morning after pill". I think S.D. lawmakers are over reaching here though, i think a outright ban on partial birth, and an exception for rape/incest/health of mother would be easier to pass.
Fatherhood not withstanding, these "religious folks" need to reexamine their theological stances. Isn't it the work of the church to save souls not lives? If so there end result may be valid, but the whole reason they give for banning abortion would not be. You see, if the more Christ-like duty of saving the soul was the real reason, then these folks were be more concerned about the mother having the abortion and the doctor performing it. I would assume that the souls of aborted babies would get a free pass to heaven. Is this a really weird point? Ok, back to eating my Van Camp Pork and beans.
The reason Christianazis oppose abortion are numerous.1). They fear that abortion is the devil's way of preventing Baby Jesus from coming back (like that's gonna happen). Apparently their all-powerful God is only all powerful some of the time.2). It's hard for child less couples to adopt a healthy white baby. Apparently when their all powerful God says he doesn't think you'll be good parents, they don't listen (also this is a tad bit racist).3) A woman's place is chained to the stove in the kitchen squeezing out puppies to fight in Jesus' name against the barbarian Muslims. The hypocrisy of the right on this matter is stunning. They say the government should stay out of their rights, but should intrude on the rights of women. They claim to protect the rights of the unborn, then support a war where our own army is using depleted uranium, which has been proven to causebirth defects, some deadly, in the children of US soldiers returning from Iraq. And of course, once the child is born, they deny it any federal benefits, or even any sort of health care. That's your compassionate conservatism for you.
Damn Lew, testify!
Thank God for those brave South Dakotans, er, South Dakotaites, um PATRIOTS! These people recognize that a life is a life is a life, and that the fertilized egg of a "victim" of rape (who more than likely had it cominng) or incest (if she didn't want it, why'd she dress so purty for daddy?) is as entitled to life as you or I. Well, maybe not you, since everyone reading this is an America-hating hippie, but certainly I!
Rex
P.S. If this comment doesn't get the hate mail flowing, nothing will.
did someone say a living newborn baby is not a person? Umm ok. so how is eveyone feeling today?
seriously though fosco made sense there at the top.i too think most people would agree with the first trimester, which is the original roe ruling. I too think that partial birth should be banned altogether, and i think most people would agree with that. and i think it would be easier to get through, and it would be the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is not obvious that blogs are not cookie cutter articulations of a view. Even among us, on this blog, we have differences in views. And further, commenters come from all persuasions, stitching together does NOT require that we all have the same views. In fact there were many views expressed in these comments and many views have been expressed here in the past. Let me go out on a limb and suggest that ego and competition stop MANY people from doing REAL stitching. Stitching is perhaps another subject we can touch on later.
Who said that liberals categorically believe that NO restrictions are EVER appropriate? Some do, some do not. I don't agree with saline births at 37 weeks- but thats ME. The majority of Americans seem to believe the criteria changes considerably after the first trimester. Many clinics require women to wait for the 14-16 week window. I know women that had to come back further in for their procedural reasons.
The criticism of the left is often based on this idea that to be effective and cohesive we must be stripped of all variance and placed into a neat package to 'sell' against the 'on message' republicans. Even people on the left insist that the problem is message, or lack of. Lack of clarity. What do we stand for? Well- unlike people that are dictated to, we stand for many things- only I will agree we do not sell THAT very well.
But is it possible that there is some strength in our diversity of opinion, the idea that people can formulate policy based on multiple and often competing interests? You will NEVER EVER get consensus on when life begins. Never. People cannot debate faith, spirituality, convictions, etc.
You can only go so far. Then it breaks down, we all know this. That is why I believe in choice because I know my reasoning does not apply to everyone in America. Choice is the only way to address a spectrum of beliefs. Consensus will not address it.
It sounds like you are saying that we should be more accommodating of a middle ground? I think many of us are in the early, rare, prevention camp. Not in the "who cares" camp. But the 'lets make it as unnecessary as possible' camp. Certainly it is not helpful to prevent women from getting contraception or plan B. And other technology that may be on the horizon.
What Fosco was refering to in his original post was the lack of safeguards for women who have been impregnated by rape. Not only does she have to go through the horror of some slime bucket forcing himself upon her, now they are stating that she has to carry the result of the crime with her for nine months, reminding her through every day of morning sickness, every moment until the painful horror of delivery of the sadistic act of rape. What I was referring to was the hypocrisy of those beer swilling brain damaged chemically imbalanced flag waving paranoiacs who oppose abortion, yet support a war where we drop white phosphorous, which burns through to the bone, on civilian populations containing women children and babies. Where we send our troops to be exposed to depleted uranium that will not only cause birth defects to their children, can also lead to uterine cancer in their wives, as well as numerous health problems for the soldiers themselves, all in the name of Christianity.
It goes beyond that- there is the issue of whether or not a woman can prevent the rapist from custody or a say in adoption! Termination of rights enters into this now.
Thats the real subject here, not just the SD law although that is important and has more reaching consequences for more people. But this is kind of a new wrinkle. In the past many have said rape is different. but- This supreme court is different too, you'll see. life is life and a rapists baby is a baby. They will not succeed on that count but Roe will be thrown out as soon as a good case comes up that tests the scenario the way they want. The case that will be the undoing will come froma challenge of SD and they are already preparing I am sure. All part of the long term plan.
Past that is the matter of letting these men have an actual say in the placement of this baby, ludicrous. thats why it is such a crazy joke because it is not really funny in that context, is it? I am pro-life mostly, in that I think after the very beginning it is like murder, but thats just my take not for a woman to be forced to accept. So I keep my mouth shut and let others decide. I feel what I feel. I can say I am on the left but am religious, Lutheran but see religion as force of peace, not violence. So what can I do? If we all had the same beliefs, but we don't.
But a rapist should have NO say! IN anything.
Rhino.....how did you get your head up your ass with that big horn on your nose?
Inquiring minds want to know.
:D
Not that anybody cares, but I'm about fed up with every two bit right-winger out there who's never so much as read Roe proclaiming that the Constitution does not support any right to an abortion. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. The right to an abortion is premised on the right of privacy, which actually has a long and respected constitutional jurisprudence, only in other contexts. There are plenty of liberties that we enjoy these days which are not explicitly laid out in the constitution; they instead are derivations and extrapolations of well-respected constitutional principles. Nowhere does the Constitution say you have a right to talk on the phone without the government listening in at all times, and yet...we do. Saying that a "right" must be explicitly written into the constitution for it to exist indicates a failure to understand history or Constitutional jurisprudence. Additionally, you will not find me to be one of those liberals who believes that since Roe is a "weak" decision, that it would be best to let this be decided by the democratic process so we can have an "honest debate" on abortion, because I do believe that a woman has a right to utter control over her body to a certain point, and I'm unwilling to see that provided to her in some states, and taken away utterly in others. Roe, and it's permutations in Casey, should be upheld. 'Nuff said.
This might become a serious first-responder training issue in South Dakota, instead of just a discussion point. One of my favorite forced birth conundrums guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?
Here's an extension of the 5 blastulae or the 2-year-old question. Do first responders, like fire fighters, have training and equipment to rescue petri dishes? Would they run into a burning building to save them even if there weren't any 2 year olds? Do they have protocols? Will they need to train in South Dakota? What are the emergency evacuation policies in fertility clinics?
I can't wait for the first South Dakota Republican politician to get nailed in a paternity suit because a DNA test proved him to be somebody's papa. They are going to be wishing they had their abortion clinics back in business.....
Chronic (male) masturbators will soon be prosecuted under the Genocide Convention.
You know who you are.
thank you for the posting fosco - if you only knew.........
Well not to bring this up every time, but isn't it a bit ridiculous to presume to know what any of us do in our real lives? Or who we are? You make sweeping conclusions about us based on what you see, and assume that you have it all down? See every now and then we go through this with somebody who comes along and critices one of us for what we are doing, not doing, etc. In all fairness, you have no idea. You have no idea what our efforts include, what or who we are in real life. You seem to think we hang our hopes on this-the one thing you personally can observe- as the extent of what we do? How is any idea furthered by coming here and drawing broad conclusions about people and what they do, with so little to base it on?
Further, step up on this. Would you mind telling us what YOU do? Are you Clinton the Great's advisor? What?? If criticism is a waste of time, and our actions so misguided,certainly you must engage in far more than participating in what you purport to scorn, right? SO, tell us what you do that is more noble. More constructive. Tell us how you apply your expertise. Tell us an example of something you do that defies your own criticism made here. It would really benefit us to know. TELL us how you are better- please. As a public service. An example, please. Something you are doing that is in line with your comments. That is superior, that is better than what you imagine we are doing.
We are a diverse group of people and we do not fit into your 'angry liberals that do nothing but mental masturbation' all day box. And I'll tell you, nothing feels good about being characterized erroneously and being put on the defense as though all that you conclude is accurate. You presume to know what motivates us and what we are trying or not trying to achieve.
I never said I expected a blog to change the world. What I expected was to engage in dialogue on issues so we can benefit from many views. THIS does far more than making up the positions and activities of others, which is what you are doing. Much of what you say about 'liberal bloggers' has nothing to do with the primary goal here.
This is a very,very small part of who most of us are. Your generalizations and assumptions are far less constructive because in the end you don't have to 'hear' to do what you are doing, you base your opinions of people here on your predetermined assumptions and then set out to criticize us for what you wrongfully assume. There's even less point in that than blogging, really.
Ok as an explanation, I did remove the comment because it was an attempt to give identifying information, and while I really have no idea if it is true because I don't really know the blogger in question- I just figured it was best to delete it. It was not to censor something I did not agree with, as most of you know, we let those stand as part of the discussion. Even the nasty things, we don't censor.
Couple of things:
Wadena, lets just say lots of lube
Lily what is stitching?
xanthippas i've read roe, but i'm not a lawyer so i go by the judgement of someone who is not only a lawyer, but one of the most respected legal minds in history. I think i mentioned that earlier.
Maybe you're smarter than Scalia, maybe you see something he doesn't, but i haven't seen your qualifications, just your emotions. and clearly that's the way the roe case was decided, by emotion, and incorrectly.
Stitching didn't come from me, it came from a comment. About liberal blogs not stitching themselves together, our futility, blah blah.
Rhinalito, we know you love Scalia. But his is not the only qualified legal mind out there that a person can align themselves with. (He's no Justice Black, for damn sure :)) Obviously it takes SOME degree of credential to be put on the Supreme Court, thankfully those with little ended up just being a strategic p.r. nightmares. Borkgates.
But the crux of your contribution on Roe rests on the fact that Scalia is distinguished and intelligent and therefore HIS view of the constitution and unsettled law is beyond reproach. I happen to like Ginsburg and think SHE is competent and has an authority. Are you suggesting we discuss law in terms of who offers the best intellectual pedigree? Should they arm wrestle? That is why some dissent, the system is based on that dynamic.We know that Scalia and Thomas have a certain take on things, just as seperationists have a take on establishment. But that is what makes our system so fluid, because we do not defer to an authoritative dictator or elitist body entrusted by virtue of their presumed expertise. Our legal system is based on the ability to revisit settled law on the basis of significant developments as per SCALIA. And also to assert that some issues are done to death, resolved. It is true that Scalia and others like him view Roe as flawed, abortion as unsettled, the law much like a dirty sock put back in the drawer when it should be dealt with. I think that this court will in fact revisit the matter, very soon, as challenges of SD come in, they will choose the ideal case with which to settle this question to THEIR satisfaction. By all means correct me if I have it wrong, Rhino. I'm not a lawyer either.
Lily i don't like Scalia simply because of his intellect, i believe in his process as well. He's more of an originalist. he doesn't believe in a living breathing constitution that we can just change and mold to the times. If you can change the rules of the game at halftime, what game are you playing?
X says we're twobit, we haven't read roe, etc. i was pointing out that i might be that but scalia is not.
Excuse me for not sharing your enthusiasm for ginsburg, but i have a hard time with someone who was the lead council for a communist organization and was the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.
I don't know for sure, but i think maybe she's a bit of an activist.
Scalia is the opposite, he believes that Scotus should have less power, he doesn't think the unelected judiciary should be so powerful. I'm with him on that. i don't think tyranny is a good thing whether i agree with the position of the tyrants or not.
Opinion is not wrong, so you can be right and i can be right, but the law shouldn't be so fluid. There is no guarantee to abortion in the constitution. It is not implied in any of the amendments either. It was decided by activist judges who act more like politicians.
By the way, according to what i've read, Scalia has never called for a ban on abortion. Scalia's position if i understand it correctly is that it is a legislative matter to be decided by the individual states. Of course there is always the chance i could be wrong too...... oh no that's not right, i forgot that i know it all. whew, i thought i might have been mistaken for a second there.
Lily i don't like Scalia simply because of his intellect, i believe in his process as well. He's more of an originalist. he doesn't believe in a living breathing constitution that we can just change and mold to the times. If you can change the rules of the game at halftime, what game are you playing?
X says we're twobit, we haven't read roe, etc. i was pointing out that i might be that but scalia is not.
Excuse me for not sharing your enthusiasm for ginsburg, but i have a hard time with someone who was the lead council for a communist organization and was the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.
I don't know for sure, but i think maybe she's a bit of an activist.
Scalia is the opposite, he believes that Scotus should have less power, he doesn't think the unelected judiciary should be so powerful. I'm with him on that. i don't think tyranny is a good thing whether i agree with the position of the tyrants or not.
Opinion is not wrong, so you can be right and i can be right, but the law shouldn't be so fluid. There is no guarantee to abortion in the constitution. It is not implied in any of the amendments either. It was decided by activist judges who act more like politicians.
By the way, according to what i've read, Scalia has never called for a ban on abortion. Scalia's position if i understand it correctly is that it is a legislative matter to be decided by the individual states. Of course there is always the chance i could be wrong too...... oh no that's not right, i forgot that i know it all. whew, i thought i might have been mistaken for a second there.
Can you explain to my why people who believe in an originalist interpretation are so opposed to the causes taken up by the ACLU? Its just a side question. For example, if the establishment clause forbids public support for religion, why do people who claim to adhere to the Constitution hate the ACLU for defending a case on the basis of public money promoting a religious element? If you are an 'originalist' than you no doubt believe in the strict interpretation of providing for the public welfare, etc.. The right to protest and demonstrate and exercise free speech. The right to equality under the law. The ACLU is about asserting those rights spelled out by the Constitution, and yet you are so adamantly against them. Why? The essence of small government/conservativism is its emphasis on the individual. Yet when the ACLU goes to bat for individuals whose rights are being violated, they are the ones called communists? Civil rights are not exactly a communist characteristic. The over reaching state ironically is often what they dispute. I would think a communist mindset would render individuals far benaeth the will of the state, by its definition. No? If the ACLU were communists their agenda would be to supress all individual rights in favor of the state. I bet you would even agree with some of their cases, Rhino, if you got past your bias.
See the trouble is that on the right you have originalists mixed with thumpers and you have to sort out that contradiction. Your politicians must answer to both- we all talk about your clear message but actually the right condradicts itself all the time. The flock hears that the ACLU is a bad liberal batch of commies and so everyone falls in line? Why?
Now the states rights thing is a different matter. But why is it that with abortion and other matters, people are staunch states rights advocates. But when two gay guys want to get married, the right are all about amendments? What would a Scalia fan say of that?
See this is the problem we clash with all the time. Many of you will argue passionately about state rights, but push for federal laws when it comes to the wingnut agenda. Family based rights and autonomy, but debate Terri Schiavo all night. Strict interpretation, but permit faith based initiatives, and violate establishment. Pro Life, but pro death penalty. Anti social welfare, pro corporate welfare. Anti regulation, but pro surveillance and privacy invasion. Pro business rights, anti-people rights. Pro-globalism, but anti-outsourcing. Pro-fiscal accountability, but anti transparency.
Blame the smallest recipients of governemntal assistance, let the largest recipients off the hook. The ones who can best handle their own situations get the governmental love, while the poorest among us get screwed without dinner, punished. Was that the intent of the Constitution? I don't think so.
Does 'life' begin at conception? Well, obviously the egg and the sperm are alive, so it depends on which cell's life we're focusing on and which is ignored. What happens when the one lucky sperm among millions reaches an egg first? What are the steps that can go right or wrong after that? What does the term conception cover?
Anyway, the point is that less than half of all the blind dates between sperm and egg make it successfully. And that's a conservative estimate. In most cases when the sperm strikes the egg's surface, the sperm dies, the egg dies, and/or whatever stage the embryo or pre-embryo is in, dies. So for the soundbite answer, it would be perfectly accurate to respond to the question of "What happens after conception", to say, "Usually, death".
Pregnancy results from a cascade of events, all as important as any other. There's fertilization, division, implantation, growing of the umbilicus, etc. If one of these events doesn't happen, there is no possibility of birth.
Why don't pro-lifers talk about ectopic pregnancies (where an egg implants outside the uterus, like in a fallopian tube). Even crazy Tom Coburn doesn't accept an ectopic pregnancy as life, since he performed an "abortion" to save a woman (sterilizing her against her will in the process). So, somewhere in the backs of their minds, they know the difference between a fertilized egg and a pregnancy.
Another example is known as a "blighted ovum", in which the blastocyst implants properly in the uterine lining and begins the process of gastrulation. Problem is that due to a chromosomal abnormality, the part of the blastocyst that becomes the yolk sac develops, but the part that is to become the embryo does not. So, conception has taken place, but no baby! Therefore, even though fertilization has taken place (the point at which lifers claim that there is a human), no human develops.
"When does life begin?"
The priest says "at conception," the minister says "at birth," the rabbi says, "once the kids have finished school and moved out of the house."
Its all a matter of perspective.
The mystic in me says:
The soul begins when the parents merge their own into a new one, usually before intercourse: then they reproduce a body for them to live in.
The homo sapiens begins when the total chromosomes of the gametes combine in a fertilized egg.
The person begins when they are accepted by a social group: usually within a few days after birth and often marked by a ceremony.
Life doesn't begin for a single person, who is a point in a continuum of lives reproducing since at latest the RNA churning in the primordial organic soup. "A life" is retroactive, without a beginning - just a transformation. And open-ended into the future, as the soul transcends the death of the human, the homo sapiens, even the person lost to history, but whose own life lived changes the world indelibly for all time, their soul part of the life the Universe.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
Lilly, there is no clash, the establishment clause DOESN'T forbid funding go religious institutions, it forbids the ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION. That doesn't mean that the ten commandments can't exist in a public park in idaho.
I bet i would agree with some ACLU causes, i bet you would agree with some President Bush causes, but you hate him anyway.
Gay marraige should be a state by state thing, but not a state supreme court, like in Mass. Where the supreme court made up a right to gay marraige. Read my comments, it should be a legislative deal.
If you're pro life, you want to defend an innocent life, that doesn't compare to pro death penalty for a convicted criminal.
I don't believe in corporate welfare. I do believe that we should help the neediest among us, i do believe the best way to do that is privately, not through a big government program. I'm a wingnut? i don't know what that means, but the ACLU is a commie organization. I know what that means.
How is defending American civil liberties a communist action? Wasn't the USSR adept at eliminating civil liberties, or was I just asleep during the Cold War. Please explain.
Rhino, why is ACLU defending a drug addict, like Rush Limbaugh communistic instead of just plain stupid? And why do you think that defending the US constitution and the Bill of Rights is communistic? Did you also think the founding Fathers were communists?
OH For FUCKING PETES SAKE. You either have to relearn communism, learn about the ACLU, learn about civil liberties, or perhaps all of these things. You're not being reasonable. Who is going to provide privately for the poor? The bible for food programs? The tithe AND tax society?
You know you don't have an explanation for their inconsistencies. Maybe some are not your own inconsistencies but you seem to lump the left together alot. For a rapists baby, a life is a life. Life begins at conception. For a criminal, life ends at conviction? Thats scary.
get to the part about state rights and your anti-gay federal amendments again... you are saying that you do not want judicial activists- rather legislative actions- ok. Hear you somehwat there actually- but since you also say the constitution is not a living thing that should change, you would agree that an amendment banning gay marriage is wrong then? So federal courts should be limited but federal legislative power should not be proportionately limited if I understand you right. I have no problem with state rights but I don't think this administration is clear on where you republicans really stand.
So no gay marriage amendment then. right? Gay marriage and abortion should not be dealt with by courts, but by lawmakers, despite the fact that their consitutionality is subject to review?
"DOESN'T forbid funding go religious institutions, it forbids the ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION. That doesn't mean that the ten commandments can't exist in a public park in idaho."
you know the constitution does not have one single line that says you can say whatever you want.
article 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
note to rhino and all other illiterates:
"abridging the freedom of speech"
does not use the exact words "freedom of speech" it says "abridging". just like there are no exact words saying "seperation of church and state" in article 1 (which is your logic trail)
since you obviously do not know what "respecting an establishment" means then you could not possibly know what "abridging means".
so thsi means you do not have freedom of speech according to your "logic" trail, and that means you must shut the fuck up.
thanks reverend, that was very intelligent and christian of you. so what you should do is explain to me how the founding fathers didn't want any money going to support any religion and then appropriated money for christian missions in the indian territories. of course that's just one of thousands of examples i could cite, but its one i don't hear very often so i'm trying to stay fresh. also, i would like to know how allowing the pledge of allegiance to be recited, or the ten commandments to exist in a public place is abridging any other religion. Also, don't get so emotional, that's why people have so much trouble taking the libs seriously.
Anyway, fosco i do not believe that there should be a federal gay marraige amendment. do you? I do believe in states rights, and i do believe legislature's should be subject to review.
you don't understand me correctly, and i don't speak for the current or any other administration.
I didn't know this discussion was about Bush, but i guess you can't help yourself.
Finally, the aclu was founded by a group that included admitted communists,socialists, and anarchists. This is no secret. their goal was not, and is not to protect the bill of rights.
hey kelli how have you been? still stuck in the barefoot and pregnant faze of the feminist propoganda movement i see.
Isn't that a little bit old now? i mean that was the mantra back in the 70's right? shouldn't you have moved on to equal pay for equal work or something by now?
Rhino, you are correct that the ACLU was founded by some members with Communist worldviews, such as Roger Nash Baldwin. Baldwin also pushed the ACLU to BAR commnunists from the organization in the 40s as the Communist ideology of the early 20th century had birthed totalitarian dictatorships in many regimes. The ACLU did not and still does not support this form of government. Just because a founders political affiliation was Communist or Socialist in 1917 does not support your claim that the group now has a communist agenda.
From Wikipedia:
The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the rights of all citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. While the bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process and cases involving the right to privacy (see, e.g., the Louisiana chapter [11]), the organization has taken positions on a wide range of controversial issues. In particular, the ACLU:
Supports the separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;
Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, or moments of silence in public schools or schools funded with public money;
Supports full first amendment rights of citizens, organizations and the press, including school newspapers;
Supports reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion;
Supports full civil rights for homosexuals, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones;
Supports affirmative action as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body [12];
Supports the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices;
Supports the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana [13];
Opposes demonstration permits and other requirements for protests in public places;
Is critical of current surveillance camera practices, citing privacy violations [14].
So where in that do you read in that they have a Communist Agenda?
If you can stand another 2-cents. Everytime this abortion issue comes up, it always ends up with big discussions about religion, god, when does life begin, and it gets real ugly, real fast.
But realistically, we need to all recognize that women have always had abortions and always will. Period. God & religion & destruction of possible life are all factors for each woman to decide. And they will decide based on their various backgrounds & beliefs (there's your societal input). Always have, always will. We all know abortion is not the only alternative & is rarely a first choice.
With abortion, the only issue I see is whether it remains available as a safe, medical procedure or reverts to the back-alley dangerous folk-cure it always was. Are you all too young to remember the bad old days of bloody deaths by self-administered methods too gruesome to contemplate?
One other possible issue is who pays for it. Freely available, or restricted somehow? But given my pragmatic approach, I see no purpose in discussing that issue with anyone who isn't also propounding freely available birth-control. Period. OK, that my full 2-cents.
D.K.
Imagine you are an incest victim and that you have to carry your uncle's baby.
I had an abortion when I was 13-years-old. My mother had separated from my dad and we ended up at my uncle's place, where he forced himself on me for the better part of six months. I was twelve years old when it started, and thirteen when I found out that I was pregnant. I was and still am THANKFUL for legal abortion. I do not feel guilty. I do not feel remorseful. And I certainly do not think that it was murder. It was a RELIEF Period.
Anyone who would force a woman or a child to carry an inhuman abomination like that is utterly inhuman him or herself.
Want to talk about rape victims? I can tell you here and now that my uncle's advances were more often than not painful and violent. Lately I have heard these prolifers claiming that it is impossible for women to get pregnant during rape because of the violent nature of the physical movements which take place during the assault. This is a scientific crock of shit, but they either believe it or are spreading lies by choice.
I see no reason to take these over Christianized fools (or are they UNDER-Christianized fools?) seriously when they distort so many facts.
I opernly encourage the Christian Right (which is neither) to ablish abortion. A majority o Americans believe in aborition for rape, incest, life of the mother, and, if I'm not mistaken, for the first ten weeks. Try going back to the days of back alleys, coat hangers, and trips down stairs, and the Christian Right will make the GOP a minority party for another forty years.
What's wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools? I said it as a kid! Some of the most powerful nations in the history of human civilization have imposed mandatory pledges, including Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. I'm damned fucking proud that the Reich Wingers want to put us in such good company! But then again, I've never minded being a bastard either!
Thats nice drew. I'm sure the mission statement is very impressive to you, but these are people who believe that it is unconstitutional for citizens to act on their moral judgments, They believe that the state has the right coercively to dictate matters of conscience. This is a communist ideal. It is anti first amendment. The boy scouts are a prime example. As these enemies of freedom, morality and responsibility see it, the Boy Scouts do not have the right to assert their First Amendment rights. yet they support NAMBLA?
It's a hate group. It always has been, since the day it was founded by Soviet-loving socialist radicals like Roger Baldwin. In those early days, Baldwin advised, "Do steer away from making it [the ACLU] look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in every thing we do. We want to get a lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country and show we are really the folks that stand by the spirit of our institutions."
So then during the height of the "red scare", to deflect attention away from the organization, he and some others booted out some radical communists, so what?
Rhino you are not seeing that communism and advancing civil rights are incompatible?
In what case did the ACLU defend NAMBLA? Its like you are two different rhinos, talking about how the left want to moralize via the state but then talking about they want to prvent moralizing by the state. Your comments are oddly incongruous.
Great to see some of you that I know from elsewhere. Don't worry about Rhino. In the end, he'll get a hot hippie liberal pregnant and eat his words. KIDDING.
Oops, gotta run. We feminazis are hosting a tampon festival at a college to brainwash the students with our lefty disease. Only have two hours, then the RECRUITERS from the army get the caf.
Curley vs NAMBLA.
Thanks, sweetie. Now pick up soy milk.
Soy milk is People!!!!
Thats soylent green. Get me a paper, would ya?
Embryo is to baby as....
batter is to cake.
How did a post about abortion end up being a thread about the ACLU? Was it the interjection of the right wing, who when faced with reason, start attacking liberal institutions? Or did it pop in somehwere else? Damn, now I have to read the whole thread again.
I stand corrected Mia
but when exactly does soylent green become people is the question. I love that I got a lib to quote Heston.
so what is the name of the organisation of conservitive lawyers that goes around standing up for peoples rights? umm.. hmmm.. I think.. it's.. ahhh what was the one that stood with Rush about his medical bills? umm, nevermind, that was the ACLU. hmm
Interesting but you did not really answer the question about how you know what I do or do not do unless you know me. You still insist you can and should jusdge me. Why? I gather from your answers you do know me? How else can you discuss what I do or do not do? If you do know me then you are aware of the organizations I work for and who I am, what positions I hold. If you are in New Jersey than we might have even crossed paths because I am among many things a social worker as well with fifteen years of experience in that field. Not being content with that alone though I went further in school to obtain degrees in policy analysis and then management, which brings me to my current field that incorporates all of those in addition to my work as an advocate and on boards. My point is that you are making broad conclusions about me based on what? A few comments on a blog? This is where we just exchange ideas, its not my life's work for goodness sake. Its a simple way to connect. To some degree we have tried to use this forum for some projects which were ok, given that this is not exactly Daily Kos.See you come along and read all sorts of intentions and point out where we are alike, or where we fail. As if THIS little forum defines me and what I do with respect to social justice and community organization.
Now I am not sure where you went to social work school, but number one, you do not LISTEN like a social worker. You do not express yourself like people in our field, and you make far too many assumptions and guesses to be really interested in dialogue about what anyone wants to achieve.
The fact that the conversation dwindled down has some super significance on the plight of women everywhere? Sorry, but only people that take themselves very seriously would think that. We don't. We talk seriously about issues every day, across the spectrum. Social Workers I know don't make snapshot judgements.
You came, threw unfounded criticism around, then you accused me of being hostile when I pointed out that you had no basis. If you define people by one comment thread, go ahead. But thats far more problematic as far as behavior is concerned. If I am guilty of group think and irrelevance I would choose that- over one who self righteously judges another based on such a myopic lens.
The conversation always stops on abortion because really, it gets to impasse. Maybe you had higher hopes but we have been here, done this dozens of times. The fact that we don't feel the need to rehash it every day for 80 or 90 comments means something? The ACLU came up because of the question of Roe and different interpretations about the constitution because that is the basis of re-examining Roe. The differences in views on law came to the positions of justices on law, and then to the ACLU. Is there some formula that a discussion is supposed to follow, with regulations?
You say nobody has an original thought but then you say we are not supposed to deviate from some expectaion you have, some script?
Who is forcing you to spend your time this way? If a person watched tv for an hour, that would be more constructive? You never had a conversation about weather that turned into music or sports? Thats some big significant character defect? But because this is a blog it is open for insults concerning merit or validity. "You liberals.." whatever, get a life, man.
Holy words Batman!
Jesue was a social worker...
This suit is being labeled as a Roe-vs-Wade suit for men. Of course another term could be welfare-dad.
Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.
Certain I am a social worker? Well thats strange because that hasn't been my job title, I misunderstood and thought you meant you were, and were giving an example about yourself. Forestry is an important field certainly, my sister is a botanist and works in forestry. I'm sorry you missed my posts on river corridor clearcuts/preservation because no doubt you would have had some constructive feedback. We used to have Maineiac here who seemed quite understanding of the development patterns and their threat, maybe you've run across him in blogarama.
Anyway, obviously I am not going to sit around typing specifics about myself so we can get into an argument about whether or not blogging is all I put effort into. We all can do more, every one of us regardless, and smugness just doesn't come to me as readily I guess. Instead of randomly attacking though it would have helped if you simply shared what you do that is so superior.
Gee Lily, sounds like mmmbop has access to the NSA file on you!
I have nothing to hide, troll watcher. I am open and honest, I don't scurry from my opinions like a scared rat, they win when we do that. They want people to be afraid of expressing themselves, so they can label us as unpatriotic or some otehr drivel. They can bring it on, I follow the law and its high time people said enough of this bullshit. When rights are not used they are quickly forgotten.
Best regards from NY! paradym humidifiers Car seat covers and stuff The mortgage protection insurance company Affiliate software fusionquest featuring ultralinks Commission humidifier
buy tramadol 100mg online legal purchase tramadol online - trusted online pharmacy tramadol
tramadol buy tramadol dosage iv - purchase tramadol with mastercard
buy klonopin online canada .25 mg klonopin side effects - klonopin withdrawal how long does it take
purchase tramadol buy tramadol online without rx - tramadol zanaflex
buy lorazepam buy ativan in us - ativan vs. xanax differences
tramadol online no prescription order tramadol online overnight shipping - tramadol 50 mg reviews
buy tramadol tablets tramadol dosage dogs - tramadol 93 58 side effects
buy tramadol cod buy tramadol online us pharmacy - tramadol addiction effects
buy klonopin online klonopin side effects common - klonopin withdrawal blurred vision
ativan lorazepam 2mg ativan high - ativan no prescription
ativan price 1mg lorazepam equivalent valium - permanent effects ativan overdose
ambien price ambien side effects forum - ambien cr maximum dosage
buy klonopin online klonopin half life - klonopin much get high
buy tramadol online online-viagra-tramadol.com - can you buy tramadol mexico
cheap lorazepam ativan zoloft withdrawal - lorazepam 1mg para que serve
buy generic tramadol no prescription tramadol hcl 50mg side effects in dogs - can you buy tramadol dominican republic
buy klonopin online klonopin 2mg overdose - klonopin overdose much
buy tramadol no rx tramadol 50 mg is equivalent to - tramadol 50 mg equivalent
buy tramadol overnight delivery tramadol hcl - tramadol online safe
buy cheap ambien order ambien visa - buy cheapest ambien online
ativan lorazepam ativan buy online no prescription - ativan online purchase
purchase ambien ambien overdose many mg - ambien dosage wiki
best buy tramadol buy tramadol online usa cheap - tramadol hcl 30 mg
soma online soma san diego concerts - soma san diego zip code
order tramadol no prescription neurontin and tramadol high - tramadol stronger than vicodin
buy ambien ambien cr and hair loss - mail order ambien cr
cheapest ativan can i buy lorazepam online - ativan high experience
buy soma online no prescription who makes soma bras - buy soma online no prescription cheap
buy tramadol 100mg tramadol 37.5-325 - tramadol dosage bluelight
tramadol 50 mg buy tramadol pay cod - buy tramadol online cod
order zolpidem stories of ambien side effects - ambien cr high
buy tramadol online buy tramadol money order - tramadol without prescription
order soma online order somatropin - kendrick lamar san diego soma tickets
buy tramadol ultram what does tramadol high feel like - buy tramadol hydrochloride
buy tramadol overnight cod buy 200 mg tramadol online - ordertramadolonline.org
tramadol online overnight tramadol dosage for high - buy tramadol online legit
buy tramadol no rx tramadol 50mg grasscity - buy tramadol rx online
klonopin pharmacy 2mg klonopin once - klonopin 93834
buy tramadol online cod overnight tramadol hcl is used for what - buy tramadol in australia
buy ambien online ambien side effects wikipedia - ambien cr expiration date
soma online generic soma capsules - buy soma cheap online
buy klonopin buy clonazepam mastercard - klonopin .75mg
buy tramadol 180 buy tramadol online pay cod - tramadol hcl good pain
buy tramadol online buy tramadol tablets online - tramadol hcl 100 mg iran chemie pharma
buy viagra online legal buy viagra online usa - does viagra work performance anxiety
buy viagra without prescriptions viagra online usa - generic viagra oral jelly
buy klonopin online can you buy clonazepam online - klonopin dosage alcohol withdrawal
buy ambien online how long ambien withdrawal last - ambien side effects rebound insomnia
viagra online what dosage viagra works best - viagra dosage for older men
buy generic viagra jual viagra online - viagra 150 mg dose
buy tramadol no prescription overnight buy tramadol in egypt - buy ultram online no prescription
sildenafil tablets viagra for women nz - forum cheap-generic-viagra
klonopin online no prescription overnight long does 2mg klonopin stay system - 2mg klonopin price
buy viagra no prescription purchase real viagra online - buy cheap viagra online
buy tramadol online no prescription ultram online prescription - tramadol 300 er
cheap klonopin online generic klonopin teva - klonopin making anxiety worse
generic soma online buy soma 350 mg online - generic soma description
tramadol online pharmacy can you buy tramadol over counter - tramadol hcl 25mg dogs
buy carisoprodol online muscle relaxer soma flexeril - want buy somatropin
ambien online without rx ambien dosage lethal - need buy ambien
tramadol online tramadol 50mg to get high - tramadol hcl withdrawal
carisoprodol drug soma drug warnings - soma drug test
generic ambien ambien side effects sleep walking - ambien side effects anger
buy viagra cheap where to buy viagra online yahoo answers - is the viagra you buy online real
order soma online online soma cube - soma muscle relaxer wikipedia
buy viagra now generic viagra online overnight delivery - cheap viagra sale online
order cialis from canada generic cialis good brand - cialis online rezeptfrei kaufen
buy tramadol with cod buy tramadol online 100mg - 50mg tramadol high dose
buy tramadol online day 2 tramadol withdrawal - buy tramadol online for dogs
buy viagra online without rx buy viagra online overnight shipping - viagra 25 years old
cheap generic viagra buy cheap viagra online from india - buy viagra malaysia online
generic soma online buy soma no script - soma medication online pharmacy
buy generic viagra online overnight is there viagra for women - viagra buy in singapore
can you buy tramadol online buy tramadol online from usa - what is tramadol 50mg for dogs
buy viagra 100mg viagra dosage difference - generic viagra release date
tramadol no rx buy tramadol with a mastercard - tramadol hcl xr side effects
buy viagra buying viagra online guide - can you purchase viagra online
buy viagra professional buy viagra with discover card - viagra dosage vs levitra
buy propecia online propecia online yahoo - propecia cost nhs
buy cheap tramadol tramadol hcl liquid - tramadol tooth pain
cialis for sale buy cheap cialis australia - buy cialis online without rx
buy viagra pills buy viagra online overnight delivery - generic viagra online cheapest
buy tramadol online tramadol no prescription overnight cod - can you buy tramadol in greece
buy propecia buy generic propecia usa - propecia side effects and pregnancy
buy tramadol no prescription overnight tramadol addiction lawsuits - tramadol 50mg street value
buy viagra online reviews ordering viagra online in canada - viagra online india
cialis online cialis 30 day trial - reviews viagra vs cialis vs levitra
buy retin a no prescription retin a cream safe - buy retin a 0.05 cream
order viagra for women safe online pharmacy viagra - cheap generic viagra no prescription
generic strattera strattera xanax - strattera side effects prostate
order propecia online much generic propecia - great results propecia
buy propecia online propecia hair growth results - best place order propecia
buy tramadol 180 tramadol withdrawal exercise - buy cheap tramadol mastercard
buy tramadol with mastercard tramadol withdrawal muscle spasms - tramadol with no prescription
buy propecia online buy propecia 5mg uk - propecia to buy online
buy tramadol free shipping tramadol for dogs maximum dose - tramadol 50 mg bluelight
generic strattera strattera side effects mood swings - strattera side effects dry mouth
tramadol online pharmacy buy tramadol cheap no prescription - buy tramadol pay cod
best buy tramadol tramadol hcl solubility - side effects tramadol hcl 50mg tablet
retin a buy online retin a online usa - buy retin a 1 gel
tramadol online ultram tramadol ingredients - tramadol 50 mg for humans
order propecia online cost propecia sam's club - propecia testicular pain
order tramadol online without prescription buy tramadol online no prescription usa - tramadol withdrawal wellbutrin
order propecia online propecia side effects on sperm - cheap propecia online
buy retin-a retin a for wrinkles where to buy - buy retin a gel 0.025
order tramadol online mastercard tramadol 50 mg time release - buy tramadol with a mastercard
buy tramadol cheap online tramadol hcl online pharmacy - tramadol hcl xr 100mg
buy retin a online retin a micro tretinoin gel microsphere 0.04 - retin a 0.1 for wrinkles
buy retin a cream retin a micro hair loss - retin-a micro and birth defects
tramadol 50 mg buy tramadol online no rx - tramadol snort
order tramadol tramadol online - tramadol purchase canada
buy propecia where to buy propecia forum - generic propecia uk
purchase tramadol tramadol discount card - where can i buy real tramadol
tramadol online buy tramadol tennessee - buy tramadol no rx
tramadol online tramadol high booze - tramadol 50 mg recommended dose
generic propecia online generic propecia for sale - how to order propecia online with prescription
tramadol online pharmacy tramadol quickly does work - legal buy tramadol online us
tramadol online no prescription tramadol 100 mg sandoz - tramadol for dogs anti inflammatory
viagra online without prescription cheap discount viagra - how can i buy real viagra with no prescription
buy viagra cheap viagra and women - buy cheap viagra online with prescription
buy tramadol buy tramadol in uk - buy tramadol in florida
viagra online without prescription viagra cialis levitra online pharmacy - viagra online yahoo answers
buy cialis no prescription cialis online de - order cialis online mastercard
tadalafil 20mg cialis online order - cialis sale online canada
viagra online viagra vision blue - scary movie 4 viagra online
generic cialis buy cialis online discount - cheapest cialis online uk
tramadol 100mg buy ultram generic - buy tramadol with cod
buy cialis 10mg cialis side effects - cialis 10mg online
generic cialis cialis daily use side effects - ho comprato cialis online
generic viagra generic viagra online pharmacy review - buy viagra online london
cheap generic cialis buy cialis philippines - order generic cialis in canada
cheap viagra does viagra for women work - viagra 600mg
buy tramadol tramadol hcl manufacturers in india - buy tramadol online no prescription cod
buy tramadol online buy tramadol in uk - tramadol hcl can it get you high
viagra online without prescription buy viagra online london - viagra za jeni
cialis cost cialis daily dose price - cheap cialis online canada
buy viagra viagra from us online - how to buy generic viagra in us
buy cialis buy cialis online malaysia - typical price cialis
generic viagra safest place buy viagra online - who sells generic viagra to us
viagra 100mg 4rx generic viagra review - viagra online from us
buy cialis order cialis with no prescription - cialis online american express
buy somas online soma drug - soma san diego escape fate
soma drug soma vanishing back bra - can i buy soma online
buy soma online cheap cialis 20mg pills - can you buy cialis over the counter in mexico
soma muscle relaxant soma pills street value - soma networks
buy cheap soma buy soma online cod - soma drug interactions ibuprofen
soma without prescription somo 650 driver - side effects of soma 350 mg
Post a Comment