Re: A history of (pro-life) violence
KS---
Decision Making", taught by Phillip Boyle. His description of "Governing in
a Democratic Society" is that making good public decisions is a balancing
act between the needs of personal liberty, then needs of the community, the
need for a healthy economy, and the need for fairness (equality). It is
often difficult to strike a reasonable balance. IMHO, the abortion issue is
one of the hardest to legislate because there is little common ground to
strike a balance with, except the right of a woman to decide the fate of her
body. Yet if we unilaterally grant a woman that right, we take away the
right of the unborn and therefore there is no fairness for the unborn.
Personally, I am opposed to abortion. And yet, I don't use the abortion
issue as a litmus test issue for political candidates because I don't think
abortion should always be illegal. But I do think it should be difficult to
get an because abortion shouldn't be used as a casual birth control method.
It is far less damaging to a woman's psyche to prevent a pregnancy through
contraception than through abortion.
That being said, if abortion is to be legal then there should also be some
balance between a woman's rights and an unborn child's rights. Thus, I think
it is reasonable to deny abortions after the first trimester. It used to be
that women weren't even sure if they were pregnant until nearly the end of
the first trimester. However, that has changed dramatically in the last 20
years. With modern pregnancy tests, most women know within the first few
weeks of conception. Thus, I think that should weigh in on balancing a
woman's right to choose and an unborn's right to life if they are close to
viability (which is about 24 weeks, iirc).
I also think that parents should have a right to be notified if their
daughter is considering an abortion and she shouldn't be able to get an
abortion without a parent being notified at least 72 hours in advance of
where and when the abortion will take place. That gives a parent time to be
a parent and help their child make the best decision possible and support
their child in whatever decision they make. To my knowledge, abortion is
the only medical procedure that a minor can obtain without parent
notification. And yet it is one of the weightiest decisions <no pun
intended> that a girl would make in her young life.
I would never consider protesting at an abortion clinic. That is infringing
on the very personal decisions of others and such a stressful time shouldn't
be a venue for public humiliation.
Btw, yes, I am a Christian and I did vote for GWB. But I didn't vote for
GWB because of the abortion issue. The abortion issue is about #101 on my
list of factors to consider when making a decision on candidates.
--
Rumblings From the NW,
KS
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken
seriously". Hubert Humphrey
"trudogg" <tru...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b3g3p1lgocsp8m0qq...@4ax.com...
> When I was sixteen years old, I was pretty sure I had knocked up my
> girlfriend. We had been together for a year, having sex for half that
> time, and suddenly her period would not arrive.
>
> A week went by, then another. We were good kids, horny but well behaved,
> with college and all the rest still to come. It was spring. I was
> waiting to hear from schools. Neither of us slept.
>
> Heading into week three, we finally sought the counsel of my mother, who
> calmly suggested that we make an appointment with a gynecologist -
> immediately. My girlfriend was given a pregnancy test, which came back
> negative. Another five days went by. I pledged never to have sex with
> her ever again. I pledged to stop whacking off.
>
> The morning before appointment number two, she called to tell me that
> her period had arrived at last.
>
> I've been thinking about this episode recently for a couple of reasons.
> First, of course, because Judge Samuel Alito has been nominated to the
> Supreme Court. Barring an outburst of moral courage by the Democratic
> leadership, he will be confirmed and the Court will begin an assault on
> various civil rights laws, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species
> Act, and other such radical notions. The big prize will be the reversal
> of Roe Vs. Wade, meaning abortion will again be outlawed, at least in
> certain states.
>
> The main reason I've been thinking about my high school pregnancy scare,
> though, is because of an odd email I received a few weeks ago. It was
> from a young college student in a Southern state. She had read some of
> my work for class and, as an aspiring writer, she wanted me to know she
> enjoyed my writing, though she found some of the graphic material
> difficult to handle, given that she was both a Republican and a
> Christian who had pledged to remain abstinent until marriage.
>
> I sent her a note of thanks, which (stupidly) included my observation
> that the current administration did not strike me as particularly
> Christian, insofar as Christ preached non-violence and ministered to the
> poor.
>
> Her response began like so: "I must ask, do you believe in abortion? I
> do realize that it is a liberal stance, but I also realize that not all
> liberals assume it. If you are, I just don't understand why you feel
> it's okay to murder innocent babies who just 'didn't come at the right
> time' or who 'interfere' but don't think it's okay to defend our country
> from terrorists who have slaughtered countless Americans for their own
> pleasure?"
>
> I am quoting her because her sentiments reflect, in a refreshingly
> unfiltered way, the posture of the Religious Right when it comes to
> abortion. And because I'd like to understand why a virtual stranger
> would accuse me of being a baby killer.
>
> The answer is this: because doing so is one way of locating her
> murderous impulses within another. It is a radical example of what
> psychologists would call projection. This is one of the hallmarks of the
> Right in this country: an abject refusal to face their own rage. Any act
> of aggression is invariably framed as self-defense. (See, for tragicomic
> effect: Bush's claim during the first presidential debate that Iraq
> attacked us.)
>
> Abortion simply exaggerates this impulse. It allows people to stand
> outside health clinics and emotionally abuse young women. In extreme
> instances, it allows individuals to murder doctors and nurses and to
> view themselves not as terrorists, but saviors. Obviously, not all
> anti-abortionists kill or harass people. But all of them share a
> histrionic view of themselves as heroic rescuers (the term pro-lifer
> says it all) aligned against Godless fornicators.
>
> Ah yes, the fornicators. Embedded in the anti-choice stance is the basic
> notion that sex for pleasure is wrong. Sex is for procreation, which is
> why every fetus (in some minds every sperm) is holy. But most people,
> even Christians, want sexual pleasure a lot more than they want
> children.
>
> This is why the anti-abortion movement emphasizes the most gruesome
> aspects of abortion; all those placards with dead babies aren't just
> there to spook the clients of Planned Parenthood. They are reminders of
> the horrors that await those of the faithful who fall prey to carnal
> desire.
>
> Which brings me back to my correspondent. Let's be honest here: any
> virgin who sends me fan mail is probably a pretty conflicted individual.
> In some sense, this young horndoggle needs the specter of being a baby
> killer to keep her from ... impure thoughts. Her note is also typical of
> anti-choiceniks in its flabbergasting solipsism. It seems never to have
> occurred to her that there might be a world outside her own beliefs;
> that a pregnant woman's body is her own property, not that of the state
> or any religious interest group; that the issue here is one of
> individual liberty, not ideology.
>
> Nor has it occurred to her that those women who get abortions suffer
> considerable anguish, that they are not sex-crazed degenerates who waltz
> into the stirrups whistling "Zip-A-Dee-Do-Da." In fact, the feelings of
> the mother, the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, mean nothing to
> anti-abortionists. All that matters is the unborn soul, which becomes
> the object onto which they project all their tender wishes about this
> fallen world.
>
> It is here that the rage of the anti-choice movement gives way, briefly,
> to despair. They want to believe in a world where every soul truly is
> precious, as God promised, in which every fetus -- if allowed to come
> into the world -- will become part of His divine plan. The unborn child
> becomes, in other words, a powerful object within their emotional
> cosmology, a means by which they can connect to their own quasi-divine
> nobility, the sanctification of potential life over actual life.
>
> The problem is that unborn children eventually get born and must live in
> the actual world. In this sense, "pro-lifers" are like the baby daddies
> of the spiritual world: full of promised love for the abstraction, and
> nowhere to be found when the kid shows up. They don't want to deal with
> the fact that some children in this country grow up starved of love, and
> warped by poverty.
>
> It should come as no surprise that the anti-choice movement is ascendant
> at the moment. The Bush era has marked, above all, a dramatic shift away
> from the tragic complexity of the world. Instead, the citizens of this
> country have been encouraged to indulge their most childish impulses:
> rage, hypocrisy, self-absorption. What is surprising is the abject
> failure of the left to call them out on this crap. Cowed by the
> infantile rhetoric the Religious Right, slavish after those elusive
> swing voters, Democrats have refused to frame the debate as one over
> reproductive rights.
>
> Which brings me to a final story. A few days after the last presidential
> election, I found myself talking with a friend of friend who lived in
> suburban Virginia. She was a single woman of about thirty. She and many
> of her friends had had abortions. And yet she voted for Bush. I asked
> her if she had any idea what Bush's views on abortion were. She replied
> that she didn't know what either of the candidates thought about
> abortion. It hadn't been a big issue.
>
> I was astounded by her ignorance. But then I thought about the way the
> campaign had unfolded. When questioned in the second debate, Kerry had
> been careful to make clear his personal objection to abortion. He seemed
> almost ashamed to add that he didn't believe the state should regulate
> the bodies of its female citizens.
>
> In the weeks to come, the usual pro-choice suspects will dutifully argue
> on behalf of a woman's rights to choose. That's not going to be enough.
> The leadership of the left has to recognize that those who oppose choice
> are not simply benighted crusaders, but bullies who are exploiting the
> abortion issue to exalt their pathologies.
>
> The choice to abort an unborn child is, without a doubt, a modern
> tragedy. Forcing poor women to seek out illegal practitioners is a
> medieval one.
>
> Steve Almond
>
> (c) 2005 Independent Media Institute.
>
> Source: AlterNet
> http://alternet.org/rights/28838/
Barbara Lake
"KS---" <ks...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17kkf.118517$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
You know, Kathy, I really can't disagree with anything in your post. I am
still undecided about parental notification. You speak from the standpoint
of a loving parent who would be there for her child under any circumstance.
If a girl has a good relationship with her parents, she may have already
told them and accepted their advice and support. Unfortunately, too often a
young girl will engage in sex as a substitute for love she does not find at
home. If that is the case, notification to the parents can worsen the
family dynamics and, in the case of a possibly abusive relationship, even
jeopardize the life of the girl. I do not want to see a blanket rule that
requires parental notification. Just as is the decision to abort,
notification should be determined individually.
Barbara
Jane
3ve2bfF...@individual.net...
| You speak from the standpoint
| of a loving parent who would be there for her child under any circumstance.
This has just got to be your funniest line yet, Barbs...... thanks for the
laugh.
Jane
Rick B.
wrote:
>
>
>You know, Kathy, I really can't disagree with anything in your post. I am
>still undecided about parental notification. You speak from the standpoint
>of a loving parent who would be there for her child under any circumstance.
>If a girl has a good relationship with her parents, she may have already
>told them and accepted their advice and support. Unfortunately, too often a
>young girl will engage in sex as a substitute for love she does not find at
>home. If that is the case, notification to the parents can worsen the
>family dynamics and, in the case of a possibly abusive relationship, even
>jeopardize the life of the girl. I do not want to see a blanket rule that
>requires parental notification. Just as is the decision to abort,
>notification should be determined individually.
>
>Barbara
>
without my consent but my daughter would be able to get an abortion
without not only my consent, but without my knowledge, yet I would
still be legally responsible for her medical care, including paying
for the abortion.
Allan Smith
> The big prize will be the reversal
> of Roe Vs. Wade, meaning abortion will again be outlawed, at least in
> certain states.
Highly unlikely that a case will ever be brought before the Court where the
Court could or would rule broadly. More likely a ruling specific to the one
case brought before it.
Very few people even know what Roe v Wade is about. I usually recommend they
read the decision, and then try to imagine what case would enable the Court
to even revisit that decision, except to either quote it as precedent, or
exclude one single case from it.
Roe v Wade is precedent, and is now nothing but a political and emotional
football. If Congress doesn't like it, they can try to and amend the
Constitution.
Allan
Barbara Lake
"Rick B." <ro...@urhead.inv> wrote in message
news:d7u3p11mjs16fkr5i...@4ax.com...
I can't dispute that, Rick. And, in the main, I approve of parental
notification. I only maintain that since family circumstances and dynamics
differ, each case needs to be judged on an individual basis.
Barbara
KS---
"Barbara Lake" <bgl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ve2bfF...@individual.net...
> You know, Kathy, I really can't disagree with anything in your post....
Ah, common ground. I like it. :+)
>... I am still undecided about parental notification. You speak from the
>standpoint of a loving parent who would be there for her child under any
>circumstance.
Thank you. Steph and I have our moments, but she knows that she is loved
and that I am motivated by what is best for her and her future. She
> If a girl has a good relationship with her parents, she may have already
> told them and accepted their advice and support....
That is the sort of news that even a child with a good relationship with her
parents would be very hesitant to talk to them about. They may look to
abortion as a way of avoiding the discussion entirely. I don't think that
is in their best interest. A parent needs to know if their child is
pregnant and needs to know that the child is considering an abortion.
As Rick said, a child can't get their ears pierced without parental approval
and yet they can have an abortion? That is very disconcerting.
>... Unfortunately, too often a young girl will engage in sex as a
>substitute for love she does not find at home. If that is the case,
>notification to the parents can worsen the family dynamics and, in the case
>of a possibly abusive relationship, even jeopardize the life of the girl.
In that case, children and family services could become invoved and the
child could be placed in a protective foster home. That might actually be a
better situation for them anyway. However, the parent needs to be notified
and given an opportunity to fulfil their parental role appropriately. We
cannot presume dead-beat parents are the norm.
>... I do not want to see a blanket rule that requires parental
>notification. Just as is the decision to abort, notification should be
>determined individually.
I think a parental notification law could incorporate some caveats for
notifying the parent that the child is pregnant, contemplating an abortion,
and has requested emergency foster care placement. This could incorporate a
48 hour "cooling-off" period and then a supervised conference with the
parent, child, and a guardian ad-litem to assess the situation and the
child's needs and develop a plan that is in the best interest of the child
and supporting her needs.
KS---
> ...I also consider myself a Christian, but I don't expect everyone else
> to follow my beliefs. I also don't like the idea of having to put a
> woman (or girl) through an abortion, but until they come up with a way
> of guaranteeing abstinence or the possibility of everyone using common
> sense and taking precautions, I don't see a way around it. Personally, I
> think the greater sin is in bringing unwanted children into the world to
> be abused..
You make a good point. I'd much prefer education to prevent unwanted
conception. However, I have to agree that such isn't realistic.
>.... My main complaint with the vocal "pro-life" people is they
> don't really have any answers, they don't want the morning after pill,
> they don't want sex-education in schools, they don't want
> abortions...but the have no reasonable replacements. Just saying no
> hasn't worked since man began...
Perhaps they prefer shunning?? :=o
I prefer reasonable balance to the subject and treating all individuals with
the dignity and respect they deserve. Sex-education in schools is ok with
me. However, attempting to indoctrinate political correctness or bias on
certain social issues shouldn't be part of sex-education.
KS---
"Allan Smith" <netsmith@(nospam).com> wrote in message
news:Jwnkf.3645$Pc3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Roe v Wade is precedent, and is now nothing but a political and emotional
> football. If Congress doesn't like it, they can try to and amend the
> Constitution.
I agree that Roe V. Wade is precedent that isn't going away any time soon.
If any changes are made to abortion laws, it will revolve around parental
notification, viability related issues, and whether when a government agency
should be compelled to pay for abortions.
what...@when.com
On 3-Dec-2005, "KS---" <ks...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer reasonable balance to the subject and treating all individuals
> with
> the dignity and respect they deserve. Sex-education in schools is ok with
>
> me. However, attempting to indoctrinate political correctness or bias on
> certain social issues shouldn't be part of sex-education.
And what political correctness or bias on certain social issues should'nt be
part of sex-education ?
Jane
P0skf.218662$zb5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Thank you. Steph and I have our moments, but she knows that she is loved
| and that I am motivated by what is best for her and her future. She
Bollocks. Be honest for once in your life KS. If ever you let Steph out alone
and she got preggers YOU wouldn't let her abort because YOU are motivated by
what is best (LOL) for YOU and YOUR future.
Jane
Allan Smith
Even setting case-by-case precedent, Roe cannot even be reconsidered until a
State passes laws against abortion, a Constitutional case is taken to the
USSC, and the case is accepted by the Court as a Constitutional issue.
The more likely outcome of a State passing any such laws would be an appeal
to the State Suprememe Court, contending the Law was in conflict with Roe.
Only if the State Supreme Court ruled that it was not in conflict would the
opportunity exist to take it to the USSC. Even then, the anti-abortionists
would not likely be the complaintant against the very law they got passed.
To do so would not only reveal their true agenda, but also would likely
result in the USSC refusing to hear a 'non-complaintant' case.
Quite simply, if the anti-abortionists were to get a State to pass such a
law, it is unlikely they themselves would mount a USSC challenge to their
own law. It would be the pro-abortion people who would challenge, and I
think they're smart enough to keep that challenge out of the USSC, unless a
large number of states began passing such laws. If they do, perhaps it is
time to review Roe.
Allan
"trudogg©" <tru...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2i44p1df4216fu323...@4ax.com...
Jane
tau5p1tfh7dv12mqk...@4ax.com...
| that I e-mailed you yesterday in thanks for the toons? <G>
How many times are you going to brag that Allan sent you a CD? Btw, I thought
you never e-mailed people concerning usenet?
Jane
Amused
"Allan Smith" <netsmith@(nospam).com> wrote in message
Ahhh......
Most informative.... I had never considered the sheer mechanics of
mounting a challenge to Roe v. Wade.
Question: If one State did pass anti-abortion legislation and the State
Supreme court did overturn the legislation, based on Roe, *then* the
anti-abortion forces could mount a Supreme Court challenge??
Barbara Lake
"Just Judy" <Just_...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:2an5p1p8ut87sjak0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:55:59 GMT, "KS---" <ks...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Steph and I have our moments, but she knows that she is loved
>>and that I am motivated by what is best for her and her future.
>
> trying to nail Jello to the wall." ;)
True. Oh, so very true. Having experience with one teenager definitely
does NOT help in dealing with another. They and their problems mutate.
Barbara
KS---
> ...I can understand the reluctance of some to have their tax money going
> for things they don't believe in. But the ones most at risk are the ones
> that probably won't be able to afford it. And our taxes do go towards
> making bigger and better killing machines all the time.
It isn't a matter of tax money going somewhere for something I don't believe
in. The government does that all the time already. :=/
It is a matter of whether policy should be for the government to pay for
something that is elective and under what conditions.
KS---
"tomal...@newshosting.com" <what...@when.com> wrote in message
news:4392acc2$0$9239$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> And what political correctness or bias on certain social issues should'nt
> be
> part of sex-education ?
Morality and sexual relationships.
KS---
> True. Oh, so very true. Having experience with one teenager definitely
> does NOT help in dealing with another. They and their problems mutate.
I can attest to that! Each is so very different and the buttons they push
are unique as well as the buttons they think they can push on you. ;=)
KS---
"Jane" <?> wrote in message
news:4392e400$0$18583$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
> Bollocks. Be honest for once in your life KS. If ever you let Steph out
> alone
> and she got preggers YOU wouldn't let her abort because YOU are motivated
> by
> what is best (LOL) for YOU and YOUR future.
Ah, just as with most subjects, Jane... you know nothing of which you speak.
Jane
|
| "Jane" <?> wrote in message
| news:4392e400$0$18583$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
| > Bollocks. Be honest for once in your life KS. If ever you let Steph out
| > alone
| > and she got preggers YOU wouldn't let her abort because YOU are motivated
| > by
| > what is best (LOL) for YOU and YOUR future.
|
| Ah, just as with most subjects, Jane... you know nothing of which you speak.
Oh -- you'd agree she could abort? Yeah right. Just as you turned your
Aids-ridden brother away from your home (if that story was true of course) when
you knew he was dying and just as you wanted to fire that waitress 'cos she
answered the question you asked? You're full of shit KS..... I don't care that
others here treat you with cotton wool and tweezers 'cos you're so supposedly
devout and they just daren't condemn that. Btw, I read your campaign lies at:
http://web.kitsapsun.com/1newsroom/tables/05vguide_skboard4.html
...... are you back with your hubby then? You forgave him did you?
Jane
Barbara Lake
"KS---" <ks...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LeGkf.222747$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "tomal...@newshosting.com" <what...@when.com> wrote in message
> news:4392acc2$0$9239$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> And what political correctness or bias on certain social issues should'nt
>> be
>> part of sex-education ?
>
> Morality and sexual relationships.
>
body, the physical (and sometimes emotional) results of sexual actions, the
importance of protection if pregnancy is to be avoided, and that's pretty
much it. Morality and sexual relationships are best handled in a loving
atmosphere in the home, according to one's religious (or non religious)
beliefs.
Barbara
Littleguy
>http://web.kitsapsun.com/1newsroom/tables/05vguide_skboard4.html
>
>...... are you back with your hubby then? You forgave him did you?
Kate,
You should have sent this to me for proof reading. At the "very
least" your employment history is NOT correct.
--
Littleguy
Barbara Lake
Jane
j8g6p117uap4iln17...@4ax.com...
I told you it was full of lies -- she only mentions "church" too -- not LDS --
not "I want to ban the books from the school library" -- not "I want to avoid
teaching kids about sex" -- not "etc. etc. etc." -- very wily indeed.
I hope she's sitting there regretting the fact she didn't stick to her promise
about ignoring those who disagreed with her on this group. I wouldn't have said
anything otherwise. LOL
Jane
KS---
> Absolutely agreed. Sex education should teach about sexual functions of
> the body, the physical (and sometimes emotional) results of sexual
> actions, the importance of protection if pregnancy is to be avoided, and
> that's pretty much it. Morality and sexual relationships are best handled
> in a loving atmosphere in the home, according to one's religious (or non
> religious) beliefs.
WOW! Two topics of agreement in the same week! It must be close to
Christmas. There is magic in the air. <g>
KS---
> ...that wasn't directed at you specifically, it was more "in general"
> observation.
I figured that. All taxpayers will never agree on each government
expenditure. There has to be some give and take.
> ...it may be elective, but as a matter of logic I'd think the cost of an
> abortion would be much cheaper than having to pay for an unwanted child
> that will be placed in the system.
True, but economics isn't the only factor that should be considered.
KS---
"cgน" <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vg96p15gemngnm1mc...@4ax.com...
> So, if the fetus is viable external to the womb (a baby) you would
> support the mother's right to have an abortion?
Were you asking me or Barb?
I thought I was pretty clear that once there is viability, abortion
shouldn't be any option at all. Viability is the point where the right of
the unborn begins to pass the right of the woman, imho.
KS---
> It was supposed to be for Barb. My apology.
No worries.
Barbara Lake
"KS---" <ks...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> "cgน" <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2uo6p1pbhueu1jnqu...@4ax.com...
>> It was supposed to be for Barb. My apology.
>
> No worries.
Kathy,
cg loves to pose questions that are more challenge than thoughtful exchange
of information and/or position. The fact that my position is not that far
from yours would, at least for me, seem to negate the question. Position
ignored and question asked anyway ... not acknowledged.
Barbara
Barbara Lake
"KS---" <ks...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> "Barbara Lake" <bgl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3vgtftF...@individual.net...
>> Absolutely agreed. Sex education should teach about sexual functions of
>> the body, the physical (and sometimes emotional) results of sexual
>> actions, the importance of protection if pregnancy is to be avoided, and
>> that's pretty much it. Morality and sexual relationships are best
>> handled in a loving atmosphere in the home, according to one's religious
>> (or non religious) beliefs.
>
> WOW! Two topics of agreement in the same week! It must be close to
> Christmas. There is magic in the air. <g>
Christmas! That's got to be it. <G>
KS---
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:04:38 GMT, cgน
> <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com> issued:
>
>>Barb, if you haven't already, please ignore my question. The post I
>>was responding to clearly had the answer to a question I shouldn't
>>have posed to you in the first place.
>
> You have my apology.
I can feel the love... it must be the season. ;=)
KS---
"Jane" <?> wrote in message
...a bunch of her usual BS.
Nice try, Jane. Trying to press all the misinformation buttons at once?
Sorry, darling, but you only proved my point about knowing nothing of which
you speak.
You do the same thing to me that you do with political issues. You spit 50%
lies, stir in 40% contortions, and add a dash of truth <maybe 10% on a good
day> and then serve it up as the almighty Gospel of Jane... hiding behind
anonymity of course. On the other hand, I am willing to put my name and
reputation behind what I have to say. And, in my neck of the woods, that
seems to count for something. :=)
So, take all the pot-shots you want, darling. You have proven yourself for
what you are and have your smidgen of believers. I have proven myself for
what I am and, frankly, I'm very content with the results. :=)
Jane
|
| "Jane" <?> wrote in message
| news:43933272$0$18587$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
| ...a bunch of her usual BS.
|
| Nice try, Jane. Trying to press all the misinformation buttons at once?
| Sorry, darling, but you only proved my point about knowing nothing of which
| you speak.
LOL -- perhaps I should be flattered that you're mimicking my posting style,
*darling* -- but for some reason I ain't, *honeybun*.
Thanks for answering the questions by refusing to answer the questions via your
infamous tactic of "quick, I must create a diversion -- try and get people to
feel sorry for me -- and, especially, hope that no-one will notice"....... well,
I don't think it worked, *my little peach*.
| I have proven myself for
| what I am
Yep, you sure have -- thanks :-)
Jane
KS---
"Just Judy" <Just_...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:re78p1h4i790tg9c2...@4ax.com...
> Strange how the number of believers surges as she enters a new
> group, and then, presto/zappo, her tactics soon alienate all but her
> little fella, who remain clueless and soon suffer the same fate/
People are smarter than she thinks. ;=)
> You'd think that, by now, they'd both have noticed. <BG>
They notice. They will just never admit it. :=o
KS---
> That's the way it is: The taxpayers give; the government
> takes. <G>
Touche. <sorry, forgot how to make the thingy above the>.
Allan Smith
They certainly could try, but about 7,000 briefs are submitted to the USSC
each term, and they accept only a fraction for consideration (in fact, 7,000
is about the number of cases the USSC rules-on in a 40 year period). The
first litmus test is that it must be a Consitiutional issue.
Question - if the State's SC has ruled a law unconstitutional, in part, on
an extant "constitutionality" ruling by the USSC, then whose Constitutional
rights were infringed by the State SC ruling, and what Constitutional right
was infringed?
I would be quite surprised if the USSC would agree to hear any case whose
obvious purpose was only to challenge an existing ruling.
Allan
"Amused" <Amu...@carsoncitycomm.com> wrote in message
news:Z-2dnUFEotZ3nw7e...@news.ruraltel.net...
>
> "Allan Smith" <netsmith@(nospam).com> wrote in message
> news:9LCkf.51955$6y4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> dogg,
>>
>> Even setting case-by-case precedent, Roe cannot even be reconsidered
>> until a State passes laws against abortion, a Constitutional case is
>> taken to the USSC, and the case is accepted by the Court as a
>> Constitutional issue.