"Crack Mother" wants her rights
Nick Danger
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:17:39 GMT, Dave Nevers wrote:
:>Now, she is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that using cocaine while
:>pregnant is not a crime of child abuse. Her goal is to have her conviction
:>overturned, and be released from prison. Her attorney argues that South
:>Carolina 'made up a new crime' to charge his client. The ACLU is
:>supporting Whitner's appeal.
Civil libertarians who have wandered away from the ACLU in
recent years as it has shifted its focus more toward feminist
advocacy might want to visit: http://www.instituteforjustice.org
They still do things like defend free speech rights. Even for
men. And property rights: they're helping Vera Coking keep
her house, the one Donald Trump wants to raze so he can
build another casino. I didn't think anybody was doing this
kind of work anymore, but these guys do. Not bad for lawyers.
---------------------------------------
The most powerful keyboard in the world.
---------------------------------------
Dave Nevers
A convicted 'Crack Mother' is appealing South Carolina's child-abuse law to
the US Supreme Court. In February, 1992, Tevin Whitner was born to
Cornelia Whitner. Tevin tested positive for cocaine in his urine at birth.
Cornelia Whitner was arrested and charged with child abuse under South
Carolina law. She was convicted, and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Just a few months earlier, in 1991, Cornelia Whitner pled guilty to
neglecting her other children. She was pregnant with Tevin at the time of
her trial.
Now, she is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that using cocaine while
pregnant is not a crime of child abuse. Her goal is to have her conviction
overturned, and be released from prison. Her attorney argues that South
Carolina 'made up a new crime' to charge his client. The ACLU is
supporting Whitner's appeal.
A federal survey estimates that, annually, about 70,000 pregnant women are
cocaine users. South Carolina alone estimates that as many as 3,200 women
using cocaine give birth in that state each year.
Per
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:17:39 GMT, dmne...@ix.netcom.com (Dave Nevers)
wrote:
[...]
>A federal survey estimates that, annually, about 70,000 pregnant women are
>cocaine users. South Carolina alone estimates that as many as 3,200 women
>using cocaine give birth in that state each year.
.
This is not a victimless crime.
The babies who suffer the consequences of being born addicted,
being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, being deformed, retarded,
mentally impaired, will suffer the consequences for the rest of their
lives. Feminism's long-established defense of cocaine mothers shows
the falsity of feminism's claims that it cares more about children.
Such children often grow up to be very troubled youngsters. If
any of the boys run afoul of the law, you can be there will be a
feminist to blame it on "testosterone" or tell us that men are
instrinsically more evil.
-----
Tired of man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes? Read
Per's MANifesto, a monthly newsletter on anti-male attitudes
and related topics. An informative package of news and humor.
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
human
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:17:39 GMT, Dave Nevers wrote:
:>A convicted 'Crack Mother' is appealing South Carolina's child-abuse law to
:>the US Supreme Court. In February, 1992, Tevin Whitner was born to
:>Cornelia Whitner. Tevin tested positive for cocaine in his urine at birth.
:>Cornelia Whitner was arrested and charged with child abuse under South
:>Carolina law. She was convicted, and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
:>
:>Just a few months earlier, in 1991, Cornelia Whitner pled guilty to
:>neglecting her other children. She was pregnant with Tevin at the time of
:>her trial.
:>
:>Now, she is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that using cocaine while
:>pregnant is not a crime of child abuse. Her goal is to have her conviction
:>overturned, and be released from prison. Her attorney argues that South
:>Carolina 'made up a new crime' to charge his client. The ACLU is
:>supporting Whitner's appeal.
:>
:>A federal survey estimates that, annually, about 70,000 pregnant women are
:>cocaine users. South Carolina alone estimates that as many as 3,200 women
:>using cocaine give birth in that state each year.
Exactly the same thing happened in Canada last year except it was alcohol
not coke and the mother had already given birth to three fetal alcohol
syndrome babies. Feminists made the same claims as above. Eventually
the supreme court let her go saying that "there are some evils that are
the responsibility of parliament to correct not the supreme court". FAS
affects many thousands of children here every year and one md who
researched the matter says about half the inmates in prison here were
born with FAS. But feminists seem quite willing to sacrifice these children's
lives.
--
Alternate views of feminism:
"Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women" by Christina Hoff Sommers
"Moral Panic - Biopolitics Rising" by John Fekete
"The New Victorians" by Rene Denfeld
"The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell
"Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The Strange World of Women's Studies" by D. Patai & N. Koertge
and related web sites:
http://www.hugin.imat.com/~sheaffer
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/index.html
http://www.kfs.org/~kashka/ammd.html
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3514c4aa....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> dmne...@ix.netcom.com (Dave
Nevers) writes:
>
>A convicted 'Crack Mother' is appealing South Carolina's child-abuse
law to
>the US Supreme Court. In February, 1992, Tevin Whitner was born to
>Cornelia Whitner. Tevin tested positive for cocaine in his urine at
birth.
>Cornelia Whitner was arrested and charged with child abuse under South
>Carolina law. She was convicted, and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
>
>Just a few months earlier, in 1991, Cornelia Whitner pled guilty to
>neglecting her other children. She was pregnant with Tevin at the
time of
>her trial.
>
>Now, she is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that using cocaine
while
>pregnant is not a crime of child abuse. Her goal is to have her
conviction
>overturned, and be released from prison. Her attorney argues that
South
>Carolina 'made up a new crime' to charge his client. The ACLU is
>supporting Whitner's appeal.
>
>A federal survey estimates that, annually, about 70,000 pregnant women
are>cocaine users. South Carolina alone estimates that as many as
3,200 women>using cocaine give birth in that state each year.
----------
Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
specific intent to do those things. I would say
the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
since there is no child until there IS a child.
Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
if that damage was caused in utero.
Lefty
GVro...@worldnet.att.net
"Nick Danger" <nda...@cts.spamTHIS.com> writes: > On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:17:39 GMT, Dave Nevers wrote:
>
> :>Now, she is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that using cocaine while
> :>pregnant is not a crime of child abuse. Her goal is to have her conviction
> :>overturned, and be released from prison. Her attorney argues that South
> :>Carolina 'made up a new crime' to charge his client. The ACLU is
> :>supporting Whitner's appeal.
>
> recent years as it has shifted its focus more toward feminist
> advocacy might want to visit: http://www.instituteforjustice.org
> They still do things like defend free speech rights. Even for
> men. And property rights: they're helping Vera Coking keep
> her house, the one Donald Trump wants to raze so he can
> build another casino. I didn't think anybody was doing this
> kind of work anymore, but these guys do. Not bad for lawyers.
>
A couple of years ago I tried to raise the issue of feminist
left wing bias in AOL's ACLU forum. The only reply I got was
from a liberal white male college professor who had been charged
with sexual harassment for making risque comments in the classroom.
The ACLU refused to help him, claiming they were to busy. He was
later privately told that the ACLU didn't defend members of the
patriarchy. Apparently, the only way for a white male to get help
from the ACLU is to join the American Nazi Party. :) I still get
letters from Ira Glaser wondering why I no longer send them money.
Jerry Vrooman
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <351809da...@news.idt.net> pe...@idt.net (Per) writes:
>
>On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:17:39 GMT, dmne...@ix.netcom.com (Dave Nevers)
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
women are>cocaine users. South Carolina alone estimates that as many
as 3,200 women>>using cocaine give birth in that state each year.
> This is not a victimless crime.
The babies who suffer the consequences of being born addicted,
>being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, being deformed, retarded,
>mentally impaired, will suffer the consequences for the rest of their
>lives. Feminism's long-established defense of cocaine mothers shows
>the falsity of feminism's claims that it cares more about children.
> Such children often grow up to be very troubled youngsters. If
>any of the boys run afoul of the law, you can be there will be a
>feminist to blame it on "testosterone" or tell us that men are
>instrinsically more evil.
----------
Ah, but criminal intent is STILL required in the law.
A person who does not have the specific intent to harm
a person or a fetus...SHOULD NOT be found guilty of
a crime that requires such intent. The ACLU has a valid
argument against having "different" rules for criminal
intent for men than they have for women. Even dis-
regarding the difference between fetal protections and
personhood arguments, intent is still required...the
same kind of intent used for battery.
Lefty
Neal Hunt
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> if that damage was caused in utero.
Oh, yeah. That'll work.
human
On 20 Mar 1998 16:28:53 GMT, GVro...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
:>
:> A couple of years ago I tried to raise the issue of feminist
:>from a liberal white male college professor who had been charged
:>with sexual harassment for making risque comments in the classroom.
:>The ACLU refused to help him, claiming they were to busy. He was
:>later privately told that the ACLU didn't defend members of the
:>patriarchy. Apparently, the only way for a white male to get help
:>from the ACLU is to join the American Nazi Party. :) I still get
:>letters from Ira Glaser wondering why I no longer send them money.
:>
:> Jerry Vrooman
Do you tell them?
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <kirgszouks...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> "human"
<per...@aplanet.com> writes:
>
(edit)
>Exactly the same thing happened in Canada last year except it was
alcohol>not coke and the mother had already given birth to three fetal
alcoholsyndrome babies. Feminists made the same claims as above.
Eventually>the supreme court let her go saying that "there are some
evils that are>the responsibility of parliament to correct not the
supreme court". FAS>affects many thousands of children here every year
and one md who>researched the matter says about half the inmates in
prison here were>born with FAS. But feminists seem quite willing to
sacrifice these children's>lives.
----------
Not at all. Feminists just want the same laws that
apply to men, applied to WOMEN. In that regard, it
is necessary to have specific intent to harm applied
to this type of criminal activity....in the same
way that it applies to murder, battery, etc.
Lefty
Brain Death
On 20 Mar 1998 16:49:44 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway), wrote:
> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
> specific intent to do those things. I would say
> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> since there is no child until there IS a child.
Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be free to drink, do drugs, etc., while
pregnant, and that society should look the other way, because her fetus is not a child
(yet), and therefore can't be harmed? I know what you're doing here--trying to be
consistent on abortion. But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance from reluctantly
pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> if that damage was caused in utero.
Well, if that isn't a typical lawyerly solution--the kids can sue, so what's the big deal
if they're born addicted to crack or alcohol. And of course, it is fortunate that most
crack moms have plenty of assets that the child's guardian-at-law can attach.
BD
Michael Ejercito
In article <3514c4aa....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, dmne...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> A convicted 'Crack Mother' is appealing South Carolina's child-abuse law to
> the US Supreme Court. In February, 1992, Tevin Whitner was born to
> Cornelia Whitner. Tevin tested positive for cocaine in his urine at birth.
> Cornelia Whitner was arrested and charged with child abuse under South
> Carolina law. She was convicted, and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
>
> Just a few months earlier, in 1991, Cornelia Whitner pled guilty to
> neglecting her other children. She was pregnant with Tevin at the time of
> her trial.
>
> Now, she is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that using cocaine while
> pregnant is not a crime of child abuse. Her goal is to have her conviction
> overturned, and be released from prison. Her attorney argues that South
> Carolina 'made up a new crime' to charge his client. The ACLU is
> supporting Whitner's appeal.
>
> A federal survey estimates that, annually, about 70,000 pregnant women are
> cocaine users. South Carolina alone estimates that as many as 3,200 women
> using cocaine give birth in that state each year.
The crack-baby myth was already refuted. John Stossel was on a TV shows
exposing the truth about crack babies.
Michael
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> What's wrong; surely you're not suggesting that crack
> mothers are not wealthy enough to have deep pockets. :]
>
> Lefty
Apparently, they can afford crack...
As usual, Lefty doesn't think women should be held responsible for
their actions..
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
> specific intent to do those things. I would say
> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> since there is no child until there IS a child.
> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> if that damage was caused in utero.
That's certainly the (implied) legal facts of the case.
Lefty, you have answered the question: Just how _far_ will Lefty go
to defend women's _absolute_ right to their womb? Apparently
we have the answer: Far enough to defend the right to create crack
babies.
If that isn't enough to turn a few stomachs, I don't know what is...
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
kille...@prom.com (Brain Death) wrote:
> On 20 Mar 1998 16:49:44 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway),
wrote:
drugs, etc., while
> pregnant, and that society should look the other way, because her fetus
is not a child
> (yet), and therefore can't be harmed? I know what you're doing
here--trying to be
> consistent on abortion. But if the result of legal abortion is that we
can't take any
> steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance from
reluctantly
> pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
That's EXACTLY the reaction I wanted to hear, Brain Death! :-)
Lefty says that the child's "guardian" can sue... yeah... right.
Aren't these the same gals exploiting the children for welfare benefits? :-)
Go ahead, Lefty. Keep it up. It's hard to turn public opinion against
seemingly helpless, fragile women but feminists will find a way. :-)
> > Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
> > A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> > if that damage was caused in utero.
>
> Well, if that isn't a typical lawyerly solution--the kids can sue, so
what's the big deal
> if they're born addicted to crack or alcohol. And of course, it is
fortunate that most
> crack moms have plenty of assets that the child's guardian-at-law can attach.
It's especially ironic that the father (who may not have had ANYTHING
to do with the gestation) may go to jail as a "deadbeat" dad, while
if the child is taken away from her... it's most likely she'll get
off scott free.
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> Not at all. Feminists just want the same laws that
> apply to men, applied to WOMEN.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah... right. Like anyone who knows your position on 209 believes that.
> In that regard, it
> is necessary to have specific intent to harm applied
> to this type of criminal activity....in the same
> way that it applies to murder, battery, etc.
That's fine Lefty.
But that doesn't change the fact that a crack baby has been created...
and NOTHING was done about it.
Welcome to the "brave new world" of crack babies, mauranding teenage children
of welfare moms, and other "benefits" that society is pinning right
on the shoulders of the feminist movement.
Enjoy.
human
On 20 Mar 1998 21:10:01 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
:>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
:>> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
:>> specific intent to do those things. I would say
:>> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
:>> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
:>> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
:>> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
:>> since there is no child until there IS a child.
:>> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
:>> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
:>> if that damage was caused in utero.
:>
:>That's certainly the (implied) legal facts of the case.
:>
:>Lefty, you have answered the question: Just how _far_ will Lefty go
:>to defend women's _absolute_ right to their womb? Apparently
:>we have the answer: Far enough to defend the right to create crack
:>babies.
:>
:>If that isn't enough to turn a few stomachs, I don't know what is...
:>
:>Mark
In the FAS case of the mother vs our supreme court one reporter
perfectly captured the insanity with the comment "if only she
had refused to wear a bicycle helmet". We can force people to
wear a helmet but we can't stop a mother from deliberately
taking actions which will produce a crippled child.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6eubvn$l7b$1...@news2.infoave.net> Neal Hunt
<"duc...@united.net"@United.Net> writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
>> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>> if that damage was caused in utero.
>
What's wrong; surely you're not suggesting that crack
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3525ea7d...@news.idt.net> kille...@prom.com (Brain Death)
writes:
>
>> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>> specific intent to do those things. I would say
>> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
>> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>> since there is no child until there IS a child.
>
drugs, etc., while>pregnant, and that society should look the other
way, because her fetus is not a child>(yet), and therefore can't be
harmed?
Well, there are several legal theories the ACLU may
use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
the fetus while not discriminating against women,
be my guest.
-----------------------
I know what you're doing here--trying to beconsistent on abortion.
No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
If a person has not intended to criminally batter
he/she may not be charged with such.
--------------------
But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
>steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance
from reluctantly>pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
You are certainly welcome to TRY, but the fact
remains that it won't help you very much since
abortion is fast becoming a private matter.
------------------
>
>> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
>> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>> if that damage was caused in utero.
>
>Well, if that isn't a typical lawyerly solution--the kids can sue, so
what's the big deal>if they're born addicted to crack or alcohol. And
of course, it is fortunate that most>crack moms have plenty of assets
that the child's guardian-at-law can attach.
>
>BD
Indeed. It's not MY LAW! Don't shoot the messenger.
Lefty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <marks-20039...@ip-55-112.sna.primenet.com>
ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>> What's wrong; surely you're not suggesting that crack
>> mothers are not wealthy enough to have deep pockets. :]
>>
>> Lefty
>
>Apparently, they can afford crack...
Very true, but I wouldn't bet their bank accounts
on it.
>
>As usual, Lefty doesn't think women should be held responsible for
>their actions..
>
>Mark
Sure I do. Women should be held JUST AS accountable
as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <marks-20039...@ip-55-112.sna.primenet.com>
ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>> specific intent to do those things. I would say
>> the ACLU simply wants to make crimes commited by
>> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>> since there is no child until there IS a child.
>> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
>> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>> if that damage was caused in utero.
>
>That's certainly the (implied) legal facts of the case.
>
>Lefty, you have answered the question: Just how _far_ will Lefty go
>to defend women's _absolute_ right to their womb? Apparently
>we have the answer: Far enough to defend the right to create crack
>babies.
>
>If that isn't enough to turn a few stomachs, I don't know what is...
>
>Mark
-------
The end seldom justifies the means Mark. If that
were the case, we should lock up all men....for the
one-sided violence they cost in our society....either
THAT or tax them more. Of course, I would never sug-
gest that since...well...I KNOW the Constitution. Too
bad Pete Wilson didn't have me on his team when he
foolishly drafted 187. :]
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
(edit)
>It's especially ironic that the father (who may not have had ANYTHING
>to do with the gestation) may go to jail as a "deadbeat" dad, while
>if the child is taken away from her... it's most likely she'll get
>off scott free.
>
>Mark
Actually, the court can take the child away from
a crack-head momma or poppa, and if the child can't
be adopted because of health problems, both parents
will be required to pay....up to and including the
amount of money they make (minus meager living
expenses), regardless of who is caring for the child.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> Not at all. Feminists just want the same laws that
>> apply to men, applied to WOMEN.
>
>HAHAHAHAHA!
>
>Yeah... right. Like anyone who knows your position on 209 believes
that.
That's exactly right. I want the workplace to be
free of BIAS so that folks are hired based on what
they can do rather than on what's between their legs
or the color of their skin.
-----------------------
>
>> In that regard, it
>> is necessary to have specific intent to harm applied
>> to this type of criminal activity....in the same
>> way that it applies to murder, battery, etc.
>
>That's fine Lefty.
>
>But that doesn't change the fact that a crack baby has been created...
>and NOTHING was done about it.
--------
So....DO something about it. Create safe houses for
crack-using mommies to be that they can voluntarily
enter.....with people there who will prevent them from
using. Put more money into prenatal education and
screening programs. I don't think you're willing to
put your money where your mouth is.
--------------------------
>
>Welcome to the "brave new world" of crack babies, mauranding teenage
children>of welfare moms, and other "benefits" that society is pinning
right>on the shoulders of the feminist movement.
>
>Enjoy.
-----------
Better yet....learn the difference between valid law
and UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. For example, a crack using
mommy CAUGHT using .....may have, as a parole/probation
deal....have to check herself into a rehab....OR get
less prison time by staying in prison UNTIL her baby
is born. All kinds of possibilities. ....Ones that
don't offend the Constitution. Also, remember, a
baby isn't BORN crack addicted until there IS A BABY.
Since a fetus isn't a baby, it's only a possibility
of human life. That creates a real problem for judges
who would like to incarcerate BASED ON A BABY.
Lefty
Emma
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> In <kirgszouks...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> "human"
> <per...@aplanet.com> writes:
> >
>
> (edit)
>
> >Exactly the same thing happened in Canada last year except it was
> alcohol>not coke and the mother had already given birth to three fetal
> alcoholsyndrome babies. Feminists made the same claims as above.
> Eventually>the supreme court let her go saying that "there are some
> evils that are>the responsibility of parliament to correct not the
> supreme court". FAS>affects many thousands of children here every year
> and one md who>researched the matter says about half the inmates in
> prison here were>born with FAS. But feminists seem quite willing to
> sacrifice these children's>lives.
>
> ----------
> Not at all. Feminists just want the same laws that
> apply to men, applied to WOMEN. In that regard, it
> is necessary to have specific intent to harm applied
> to this type of criminal activity....in the same
> way that it applies to murder, battery, etc.
...and the same way that it applies to neglect, harassment etc.? Both of
which are unlikely to have specific intent, but which have potentially
devastating effects.
I dont think you can rely on intent...although you _should_ take into
account any mitigating factors....The same way that parents can and should
be made accountable for neglect, follows here. In effect, crack babies
experience neglect....a lack of concern/awareness as to the effects of
their behaviour on the child they are responsible for.
>
>
> Lefty
Emma
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> Sure I do. Women should be held JUST AS accountable
> as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
> crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
> will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
> Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
See...I'm uncomfortable about this specific intent thing. Look at sexual
harassment. The most common response to someone who complains of sexual
harassment has to be "It was only a joke" or "I didnt mean it to be like
that" or "I didnt INTEND to offend you"....here, the important point is NOT
the intention of the perpetrator, but the effect on the victim. In
reality....intent DOES seem to play a part, where it shouldn't...intent
here, is irrelevent.
>
>
> Lefty
Max Burke
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6evct4$k...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> specific intent to do those things. I would say
> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> since there is no child until there IS a child.
Yeah right, any pregnant woman taking drugs (including nicotine and alcohol), have a criminal case to answer, as they will be fully aware if the results of their actions.
It's just Lefty claiming women have the right to do any thing they like, and fuck any one else's right's (even their unborn children's rights), no one can stand in the way of women's rights..... I wonder if Marg, Carolyn, Stacy, Steen, etc support Lefty's views on drug taking mothers right to do whatever they like????
>>Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be free to drink, do
>drugs, etc., while>pregnant, and that society should look the other
>way, because her fetus is not a child>(yet), and therefore can't be
>harmed?
>
> Well, there are several legal theories the ACLU may
> use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
> Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
> should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
> the fetus while not discriminating against women,
> be my guest.
> -----------------------
Again, fuck anyone else's rights, if women who are pregnant cant take drugs, then they are being discriminated against......
> I know what you're doing here--trying to beconsistent on abortion.
>
> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
> Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
> he/she may not be charged with such.
> --------------------
So that means anyone (men and women) can claim they had no intent to murder, batter, whatever, and therefore cant be charged with those crimes..... What about drunk drivers, Lefty, They obviously have no intent to kill innocent people when they drive while drunk, do they also get off because they had no intent to kill?.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Feminism is a political mistake. Feminism is a mistake made by women’s intellect, a mistake which her instinct will recognise.
Valentine de Saint-Point (1875-1953), French poet, author.
“Manifesto of the Futurist Woman” (1912; repr. in Futurism and Futurisms, “Dictionary of Futurism,” ed.
by Pontus H. Ulten, 1986).
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Replace the obvious with IHUG to reply via email
Visit my Photo Gallery at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke/index.htm
webg...@javanet.com
In article <6ev30s$c...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
> In <6eubvn$l7b$1...@news2.infoave.net> Neal Hunt
> <"duc...@united.net"@United.Net> writes:
> >
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> >> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> >> if that damage was caused in utero.
> >
>
> mothers are not wealthy enough to have deep pockets. :]
>
> Lefty
>
>
Don't you know, Lefty? Crack mothers are the ones who drive Rolls and throw
lavish crack parties of their friends on their 5th Avenue terraces! They have
ENDLESS financial resources.. WHAT!!! No???? Do you mean to tell me this
isn't so?! I'm SHOCKED!!! Do you mean to say that a crack mother probably
can't afford a good legal defense?!!??
Stacy Alexander
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Paul Robbins
Well, Emma, you and I might agree on something.
My understanding is that specific intent only applies to the degree of
the crime. If I speed through a school zone repeatedly because I'm
repeatedly late to work, and one day strike and kill a child, I may
still be charged with a crime, perhaps manslaughter, if not first-degree
murder, because I never intended to actually kill a child. But if I plan
to kill someone, then I can get the first degree.
And there are no male-perpetrated crimes; only crimes perpetrated by
males.
Lefty's problem here is that only women will ever get charged with
harming their unborn children because only women gestate (men don't), so
obviously that's an unfair situation for Lefty. It unfairly
discriminates against women. Lefty cares not a whit what happens to the
fetus. But the woman did not abort, obviously intended to have the
child, and chose to take crack. If the baby is harmed, in my view it's a
crime. Letting her off because she's an irresponsible drug addict is
absurd.
Paul R
Dave Nevers
Stossel's program, "What You Know May Not Be So," aired in January, 1997,
and again in August, 1997 on ABC News. The focus of the program was not
'crack babies.' Stossel argued about the research done in support of a
number of 'scientific' claims.
One of the items he questioned was research by Dr. Ira Chasnoff. Chasnoff
reported on developmental problems of babies born addicted to crack
cocaine. Stossel was absolutely correct when he reported that not ALL such
babies face a life of retardation, etc. He was not able to say, however,
that NONE of these children were injured 'in utero' by their mothers'
cocaine use.
Stossel's story didn't address one other issue, one that applies
particularly to Cornelia Whitner's case. That aspect is that it is a crime
in South Carolina to use cocaine while pregnant. So many of the newsgroup
responses from feminists argue that a woman shouldn't be held accountable
for her crimes, an old familiar feminist song.
Many of those same feminists post bogus citations from the 'March of Dimes'
saying that the greatest cause of birth defects is from male abuse during
pregnancy. The 'March of Dimes', BTW, knows of no such study, and has
never compiled any data like that at all. But it serves as a great example
of the two-faced feminist rhetoric. One face says, "Men are demons and
must be held accountable," while the other face says, "Women shouldn't be
held responsible for crimes because _______________ (fill in the blank)."
I also don't remember hearing much feminist praise for John Stossel when he
exposed phony rape claims at Brown University. I remember seeing campus
rad-fems shouting him down, and even tampering with ABC News' camera and
sound equipment in an effort to silence him. Again, they want it both
ways. They want to be free to speak out, but be shielded from criticism.
Those are not traits of strength, or 'empowerment'. Those are traits of
weakness and insecurity.
Dave Nevers
"Being Politically Correct means always having to say you're sorry."
- Charles Osgood
Paul Robbins
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <marks-20039...@ip-55-112.sna.primenet.com>
> ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
> >
> >lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
> >> specific intent to do those things. I would say
> >> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
> >> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> >> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> >> since there is no child until there IS a child.
> >> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> >> if that damage was caused in utero.
> >
> >
> >Lefty, you have answered the question: Just how _far_ will Lefty go
> >to defend women's _absolute_ right to their womb? Apparently
> >we have the answer: Far enough to defend the right to create crack
> >babies.
> >
> >If that isn't enough to turn a few stomachs, I don't know what is...
> >
> >Mark
>
> -------
> The end seldom justifies the means Mark. If that
> were the case, we should lock up all men....for the
> one-sided violence they cost in our society....either
> THAT or tax them more. Of course, I would never sug-
> gest that since...well...I KNOW the Constitution. Too
> bad Pete Wilson didn't have me on his team when he
> foolishly drafted 187. :]
>
> Lefty
And what's the end here. To justify women ingesting crack while
gestating a child they obviously intend to bring to term? Are women's
womb rights so absolute that nothing can restrict them? Yet we restrict
other rights, such a freedom of speech, which does not include falsely
yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
I'm not convinced the Constitution was intended as a document for
defending the rights of mothers to ingest drugs that harm their unborn
children.
Paul R
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <mmsgwdysgi...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> "human">:>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>:>> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>:>> specific intent to do those things. I would say
>:>> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
>:>> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>:>> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>:>> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>:>> since there is no child until there IS a child.
>:>> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
>:>> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>:>> if that damage was caused in utero.
>:>
>:>That's certainly the (implied) legal facts of the case.
>:>
>:>Lefty, you have answered the question: Just how _far_ will Lefty go
>:>to defend women's _absolute_ right to their womb? Apparently
>:>we have the answer: Far enough to defend the right to create crack
>:>babies.
>:>
>:>If that isn't enough to turn a few stomachs, I don't know what is...
>:>
>:>Mark
>
>In the FAS case of the mother vs our supreme court one reporter
>perfectly captured the insanity with the comment "if only she
>had refused to wear a bicycle helmet". We can force people to
>wear a helmet but we can't stop a mother from deliberately
>taking actions which will produce a crippled child.
-----------
Actually, we CANNOT force people to wear helmets; we
can only charge them....when they don't. That is an
administrative law issue. How can you apply that type
of logic to human rights? After all, a woman need not
have a licence to procreate, so we cannot take her
licence from her. Essentially, all that is left is
civil harm.
------------------------
>
>
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <35138723...@globalnet.co.uk> Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
writes:
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> In <kirgszouks...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> "human"
>> <per...@aplanet.com> writes:
>> >
>>
>> (edit)
>>
>> >Exactly the same thing happened in Canada last year except it was
>> alcohol>not coke and the mother had already given birth to three
fetal
>> alcoholsyndrome babies. Feminists made the same claims as above.
>> Eventually>the supreme court let her go saying that "there are some
>> evils that are>the responsibility of parliament to correct not the
>> supreme court". FAS>affects many thousands of children here every
year
>> and one md who>researched the matter says about half the inmates in
>> prison here were>born with FAS. But feminists seem quite willing to
>> sacrifice these children's>lives.
>>
>> ----------
>> Not at all. Feminists just want the same laws that
>> apply to men, applied to WOMEN. In that regard, it
>> is necessary to have specific intent to harm applied
>> to this type of criminal activity....in the same
>> way that it applies to murder, battery, etc.
>
>...and the same way that it applies to neglect, harassment etc.? Both
of>which are unlikely to have specific intent, but which have
potentially>devastating effects.
---------
Neglect can be criminal or civil; harassment isn't
a crime at all. I think you're making fruit salad
because you seem to be mixing apples with oranges.
-------------
>
>I dont think you can rely on intent...although you _should_ take into
>account any mitigating factors....The same way that parents can and
should>be made accountable for neglect, follows here. In effect, crack
babies>experience neglect....a lack of concern/awareness as to the
effects of>their behaviour on the child they are responsible for.
>> > --
Criminal actions are to PUNISH THE ACTOR. In that
regard, civilized society demands that the actor have
intended some sort of action. For example, a man
who is making a sandwich and drops his knife, accidently
stabs the foot of a house guest hasn't committed a
crime......the guest may sue him for a number of
things. It can easily be shown that those who take
coke, don't do it in order to kill children. First,
one cannot kill another human being by ingesting coke
alone. Secondly, the motivation for ingesting coke
is to get high....not to kill someone. Third, a fetus
is not a human being, only potential.
------------------------
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <35138820...@globalnet.co.uk> Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
writes:
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
>> crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
>> will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
>> Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
>
>See...I'm uncomfortable about this specific intent thing. Look at
sexual>harassment. The most common response to someone who complains of
sexual>harassment has to be "It was only a joke" or "I didnt mean it to
be like>that" or "I didnt INTEND to offend you"....here, the important
point is NOT>the intention of the perpetrator, but the effect on the
victim. In>reality....intent DOES seem to play a part, where it
shouldn't...intent>here, is irrelevent.
-----------
Well, you would have to make sure the classification
of the crime is the same. SH is not a criminal offense.
It is a civil offense. The court would laugh as they
toss out your complaint...and tell you to take it to
the proper court. If you recall, I have already suggested
that the child CAN sue civilly for harms done.
Lefty
>
>>
Karen Hayward
> ----------
> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
> specific intent to do those things. I would say
> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> since there is no child until there IS a child.
So therefore...if a man batters a pregnant women...and either harms or
kills the child that she is pregnant with...he really can't be
charged with harming or killing that child, since by your reasoning he
cannot intend to harm that child, since there is no child until there
is a child???
To answer my own question....yes, he can be charged and there are
cases where men have been charged for killing or harming an unborn
baby.
So what makes the difference when it's a woman?? There is HEAPS of
information out there about what happens to the unborn baby when a
pregnant woman smokes, drinks or takes drugs.
There is absoloutly no excuse...and it's time that society (and
feminist women in particular) stopped making excuses for women who
willfully endanger their unborn children in this way. There is only
one victim in this equation and that's the unborn baby.
Saying that 'there is no child until there is a child' is just a
claptrap way of fudging the issue.....and is about as useful as tits
on a bull.
Karen
Karen Hayward
On 21 Mar 1998 05:44:49 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
> Sure I do. Women should be held JUST AS accountable
> as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
> crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
> will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
> Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
>
> Lefty
>
What the heck are 'male perpetrated crimes' and 'female perpetrated
crimes'?????????
For example...if a male and a female go out shoplifting and are
caught...the nature of the crime does not change just because one of
the particapants was a female and the other a male.
Karen
Karen Hayward
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:25:27 -0600, webg...@javanet.com wrote:
>In article <6ev30s$c...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>> In <6eubvn$l7b$1...@news2.infoave.net> Neal Hunt
>> <"duc...@united.net"@United.Net> writes:
>> >
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
>> >> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>> >> if that damage was caused in utero.
>> >
>> >Oh, yeah. That'll work.
>>
>> What's wrong; surely you're not suggesting that crack
>> mothers are not wealthy enough to have deep pockets. :]
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>>
>
>Don't you know, Lefty? Crack mothers are the ones who drive Rolls and throw
>lavish crack parties of their friends on their 5th Avenue terraces! They have
>ENDLESS financial resources.. WHAT!!! No???? Do you mean to tell me this
>isn't so?! I'm SHOCKED!!! Do you mean to say that a crack mother probably
>can't afford a good legal defense?!!??
>
So Stacy, what legal...or for that matter, moral defenses, can you
come up with, for a woman who endangers her baby's life through the
use of crack when she is pregnant???
Karen
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f08f2$nir$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> "Max Burke"
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes:
>
(edit)
>So that means anyone (men and women) can claim they had no intent to =
>murder, batter, whatever, and therefore cant be charged with those =
>crimes.....
A peson who has no SPECIFIC INTENT to murder cannot
be charged with murder. This already exists in law.
What about drunk drivers, Lefty, They obviously have no =
>intent to kill innocent people when they drive while drunk, do they
also =>get off because they had no intent to kill?.....
Murder requires intent. Intent CAN BE established by
several things. One way to establish intent is by
what is called "depraved heart murder" This is where
it can be shown that the intent to kill exists because
of the depraved actions of the killer, regardless of
the intent to kill that particular victim. i.e.
Also, the voluntariness of his action will be taken
into account. A person whose drink is laced with
roofies, for example will NOT have that kind of intent. A
person who willingly takes drugs/alcohol and gets
into a car, driving the car onto a crowded sidewalk
....may be said to have the intent to do
some harm, not because they got into the car, but
because they WILLINGLY drank AND GOT INTO THE CAR.
A woman who takes drugs and is addicted may
or may not EVEN KNOW she is pregnant. If she does not
know.....there is no way she could be held accountable,
since there could be no intent to harm at all.
If she does know, you would have to show that her
intent came from a depraved heart.... rather than from
her addiction.
Lefty
Emma
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> In <35138723...@globalnet.co.uk> Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
When youre talking about children it is encompassed into criminal law...at
least in the UK
> harassment isn't
> a crime at all.
That is also encompassed into the sexual discrimination act 1975 and the
race relations act 1976.
> I think you're making fruit salad
> because you seem to be mixing apples with oranges.
No lefty. Im talking about people not cooking.
> -------------
> >
> >I dont think you can rely on intent...although you _should_ take into
> >account any mitigating factors....The same way that parents can and
> should>be made accountable for neglect, follows here. In effect, crack
> babies>experience neglect....a lack of concern/awareness as to the
> effects of>their behaviour on the child they are responsible for.
> >> > --
>
> Criminal actions are to PUNISH THE ACTOR. In that
> regard, civilized society demands that the actor have
> intended some sort of action.
Wrong. Death by dangerous driving. The intent is irrelevent. The effect is
the decisive factor.
> For example, a man
> who is making a sandwich and drops his knife, accidently
> stabs the foot of a house guest hasn't committed a
> crime......the guest may sue him for a number of
> things. It can easily be shown that those who take
> coke, don't do it in order to kill children. First,
> one cannot kill another human being by ingesting coke
> alone. Secondly, the motivation for ingesting coke
> is to get high....not to kill someone.
The motivation for driving dangerously might be to get home quicker....not
to kill someone. If you do so because of the way you were driving, then you
are still guilty of death by dangerous driving and culpable under the law.
Thus...your intention is irrelevent. The fact is that your actions have
been taken without the due regard for other people's safety and well-being
and thus, you are guilty. The same follows with neglect. By watering down a
childs formula, you were intending to save money to buy the baby some
clothes or a new car, or whatever... but the consequence of doing so means
the baby dies through malnourishment. Is that parent any less guilty of
neglect?
> Third, a fetus
> is not a human being, only potential.
If the foetus has come to term, then intent comes into play. In that there
was the intention to carry the pregnancy to full term. Thus there is a
responsibility for the well being of that potential human being.
Brain Death
On 21 Mar 1998 03:41:24 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway), wrote:
> Well, there are several legal theories the ACLU may
> use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
You know, I'm struck with a sad irony here. One of the arguments the pro-choice movement
uses against the pro-lifers is, "They're so concerned with 'unborn children', but the
moment those kids are born, they want to turn their backs on them." (i.e. don't want to
give their parents money to raise them). But here's a classic case where Lefty and her
friends have all the concern in the world for that child once it's born (they want to give
it cradle to grave health care, including, ironically, pre-natal care, which by their
definition falls outside of life), but they don't want to offer it any protection against
the effects of drugs and alcohol in the womb, which could impair that future child's
ability to learn far more than not getting a hot breakfast at school. I am disgusted with
what you are prepared to defend.
> Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
> should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
> the fetus while not discriminating against women,
> be my guest.
Shouldn't be too hard--who was responsible for introducing the alcohol or other drug into
her system? If a woman is forced by a man to drink or smoke crack while pregnant, the man
is responsible for the damage done to the baby, or should I say fetus. If she is not
forced by another person, then she herself is the responsible agent. So a man could be
guilty of the crime and a woman could be guilty of the crime. Granted, in most cases it's
the woman who will be guilty, but then we have a lot more male rapists in prison than
female rapists. There are biological differences that make each crime more likely to
happen by one gender than the other. So what? You want to open up the jail cells until
we've got exactly the same number of men and women rapists in jail? (Silly question--you
probably agree with the ACLU that there should be no jails at all).
> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
> Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
> he/she may not be charged with such.
> --------------------
So by your notion of the justice system, a man gets in a car drunk and kills someone,
there's no criminal intent, it just happened and we let the guy walk away, right? Maybe
in Chappaquiddick that's the law, but not where I live.
> You are certainly welcome to TRY, but the fact
> remains that it won't help you very much since
> abortion is fast becoming a private matter.
If these are the logical consequences of legalized abortion *as a constitutional right*,
then maybe we really need the constitutional right eliminated, which still doesn't seem
impossible. I don't think a lot of the states would rush to outlaw abortion, but they'd
sure as hell outlaw this kind of behavior.
BD
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f0dff$g7u$1...@gte2.gte.net> Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
writes:
(edit)
>
>Lefty's problem here is that only women will ever get charged with
>harming their unborn children because only women gestate (men don't),
so>obviously that's an unfair situation for Lefty. It unfairly
>discriminates against women. Lefty cares not a whit what happens to
the>fetus. But the woman did not abort, obviously intended to have the
>child, and chose to take crack. If the baby is harmed, in my view it's
a>crime. Letting her off because she's an irresponsible drug addict is
>absurd.
>
>Paul R
--------
You are funny. A woman who is gestating, may cease
that gestation at any time until the third trimester,
and after the third trimester, if she has just about
ANY medical reason. That essentially means that
harm to a child cannot be shown until there IS A CHILD.
Until you are able to discern the difference between
a human being and "potential"....please don't waste
your potential by ejaculating into a centerfold.
Lefty
PangK
>From: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
>A woman who is gestating, may cease
> that gestation at any time until the third trimester,
> and after the third trimester, if she has just about
> ANY medical reason.
And she can do it DURING birth by getting a doctor or nurse to RAM a steel
spike through the infant's head and we'll just call that "POST PARTEM CHOICE"
Lefty. Ya gals got LOTS to be PROUD of... Now what was it you were sayiong
about child absue????? You are SO GENUINE on the issues!
You BRAG about shoving that steel spike into a baby's haead and sucking
out the brain just become some BITCH wants to get rid of the baby. PROUD!! Want
it as as "RIGHT!" ... Sorry
Lefty, IMHO you have NO room to be judgemental of a parent who spanks a child
they love! I don't see what YOU advocate as LOVE!!!!!!
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Carol Ann Hemingway:>>On 20 Mar 1998 16:49:44 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>>Hemingway), wrote:
>>
>>> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>>> specific intent to do those things. I would say
>>> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
>>> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>>> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>>> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>>> since there is no child until there IS a child.
>>
>>drugs, etc., while pregnant, and that society should look the other
>>way, because her fetus is not a child (yet), and therefore can't be
>>harmed?
Well, yes. Of course, even if we accept that the charges of murder and
criminal battery are excessive, we could easily downgrade them to
manslaughter and reckless endangerment. Neither of these require intent.
Lefty is not going to mention that, though. Her apparent purpose in
spinning idle legal theories is to make the issues murkier, not to clarify
anything.
(Love the email address, by the way.)
> Well, there are several legal theories the ACLU may
> use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
And if the ACLU thinks the court does not see a causal link between harming
a fetus and harming the resulting child, they're even kookier than you are,
Lefty.
> Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
> should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
> the fetus while not discriminating against women,
> be my guest.
I just suggested a way. Why didn't it occur to you? It's a very obvious
solution, requires no intervention by a guardian ad lidum, and places the
offense where many people think it properly belongs -- in the realm of
criminal law.
>> I know what you're doing here--trying to beconsistent on abortion.
>
> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
This in spite of the fact that you tried to separate the fetus from the
child -- as if one had nothing to do with the other, as if you would not
take such an absurd stand were it not for your stance on abortion.
Hey, I think abortion should remain legal, but I'm not going to pretend that
there's no conneection between a fetus and a child. I'm not STUPID.
<snip Lefty pretending to be a lawyer>
>> But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
>>steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance
>>from reluctantly pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
>
> You are certainly welcome to TRY, but the fact
> remains that it won't help you very much since
> abortion is fast becoming a private matter.
Oh, GOOD GOING, Lefty. At a time when the legality of abortion is being
slowly turned over to the states and made a political issue, you're going to
antagonize potential supporters.
Good show!
>>> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
>>> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>>> if that damage was caused in utero.
>>
>>Well, if that isn't a typical lawyerly solution--the kids can sue, so
>>what's the big deal if they're born addicted to crack or alcohol. And
>>of course, it is fortunate that most crack moms have plenty of assets
>>that the child's guardian-at-law can attach.
It is a repulsive solution, isn't it? It is not realistic, it does not
punish the wrongdoer, it fails to satisfy one's sense of justice.
I used to wonder if Lefty was some sort of antifeminist troll, but I've
decided she's just a big-mouthed bimbo who lives in a fantasy world.
> Indeed. It's not MY LAW! Don't shoot the messenger.
The messenger, my ass! You're offering legal opinions as if you had any
qualifications to do so, telling us what our options are as if those are the
only ones YOU will permit, and then putting on a stupidly innocent face when
you're called out on it.
It's not YOUR LAW. That's the only thing you got right in your whole post.
Keep it firmly in mind.
JCR
--
"Could you leave it ALL behind?
Would you be LOST without it?"
-- "Good to be Gone" by Soul Hat
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> >Lefty, you have answered the question: Just how _far_ will Lefty go
> >to defend women's _absolute_ right to their womb? Apparently
> >we have the answer: Far enough to defend the right to create crack
> >babies.
> >
> >If that isn't enough to turn a few stomachs, I don't know what is...
>
On the CONTRARY,
It would seem to justify the end (absolute gestation rights for women),
that you don't care if a child's life is shattered by crack addiction
and retardation.
Carol Ann.... there are times that your position appears to be one
of a reptile... the only thing is... not all reptiles eat their
young :-)
> If that
> were the case, we should lock up all men....for the
> one-sided violence they cost in our society..
That's an oversimplistic analysis.
First off, I'm not calling all women crack moms: I'm only suggesting
that women be held responsible for their _individual_ actions
as much as individual men are.
Secondly, men face a different set of choices than women. If men
were able to collect welfare and marry for money, a lot less of
them would be committing crimes. You even put 2+2 together when
you defend welfare (remember the "murder us in our beds threat?")
Finally, men contribute a huge amount of money in the form of taxes
and providing for their families. (Something even you realize as
you cling to Patriarchal perks like alimony and child-support.)
>..either
> THAT or tax them more.
We already are paying more taxes. That's why you support all these
govt. funded programs that benefit mostly women. Let's move on:
> Of course, I would never sug-
> gest that since...well...I KNOW the Constitution.
You may know CERTAIN INTERPRETATIONS of the Constitution, but
the right to gestate crack babies certainly isn't one I've seen.
In fact, nearly every right in the constitution is subject to social
order constraints. A supreme court defined right (and one HIGHLY
dependant upon political nomination at that) just doesn't seem
well qualified as an absolute right. Especially when prostitution,
drug use, and draft avoidance are all illegal.
I know the constitution too: 209, Hopwood vs. texas for starters.
Look 'em up.
> Too bad Pete Wilson didn't have me on his team when he
> foolishly drafted 187. :]
A liberal judge would have struck down the law regardless. You know
this, and I know this.
States cooperate with the Feds all the time to report lawbreakers:
Deadbeat dads and driver's licenses, for example.
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> >Yeah... right. Like anyone who knows your position on 209 believes
> that.
>
> That's exactly right. I want the workplace to be
> free of BIAS so that folks are hired based on what
> they can do rather than on what's between their legs
> or the color of their skin.
So do I. That's what I voted for 209: To end all _legal_ bias.
If you want to talk about hidden, social bias. I'm afraid that
the state can't do anything about that. :-) I keep telling you
to not compare apples and oranges. I wish you would listen to me. :-)
> >But that doesn't change the fact that a crack baby has been created...
> >and NOTHING was done about it.
>
> So....DO something about it. Create safe houses for
> crack-using mommies to be that they can voluntarily
> enter.....with people there who will prevent them from
> using.
Ahhh yes! If there is ANY perfect example of Lefty's attitude that
the world owes women a living, here it is.
The state already seems willing to provide such a system for them.
Heck, the women don't want to go. If they did, the state wouldn't
be seeking an injunction against them.
> Put more money into prenatal education and
> screening programs. I don't think you're willing to
> put your money where your mouth is.
And since when do _I_ owe these women a living? Or healthy children?
Lefty, you seem to think that women have ZERO responsibility to
gestate healthy children, zip. That unless the state pays for women
to do a proper job, they won't.
Tell you what: LET these women breed crack babies. A person who
abuses their freedom, doesn't have it for very long. I consider
them a representative of your movement.
If YOU don't want your movement to get a bad name, YOU put up the
money. I'm not cleaning up your messes.
> >Welcome to the "brave new world" of crack babies, mauranding teenage
> children>of welfare moms, and other "benefits" that society is pinning
> right>on the shoulders of the feminist movement.
>
> Better yet....learn the difference between valid law
> and UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
*yawn* We're not discussing the law... we're discussing the world
your supreme court created absolute right is offering us.
If the people don't want to live in it... they'll decide. enjoy.
> For example, a crack using
> mommy CAUGHT using .....may have, as a parole/probation
> deal....have to check herself into a rehab....OR get
> less prison time by staying in prison UNTIL her baby
> is born. All kinds of possibilities. ..
Or maybe she might just get pregnant in order to push her jailers
into making a deal. This system can create even MORE crack babies.
Isn't logic a complex thing?
>..Ones that don't offend the Constitution.
I don't see the right to gestate crack babies ANYWHERE in the constitution.
I think that you believe EVERYTHING you want is constitutional.
Like a religious fanatic, you aren't interested in what the words
SAY so much as what some of your buddies interpret them to mean.
Clarence Thomas, for example, may disagree with you. And yes, he
has been writing a number of opinions lately. He has a lifetime
to build up his career. And with his alleged sexual harassment
crimes relatively tiny compared to say... another official...
I think that your robed friends won't agree with you as much
as you thought.
Which would make sense considering that the people are beginning
to feel the same way. I would like to KISS those crack moms:
they have done very much to show what feminism _IS_.
>Also, remember, a
> baby isn't BORN crack addicted until there IS A BABY.
And men aren't held responsible for their actions prior to birth
but after conception? Care for me to quote from you?
Tell you what: I think the state should put the child in someone else's
care and then have her pay child-support for the next 40 years or so.
There... that's CIVIL law. Trust me... after living like a slave
for 40 years... she'll WISH she had been thrown in jail! :-)
> Since a fetus isn't a baby, it's only a possibility
> of human life. That creates a real problem for judges
> who would like to incarcerate BASED ON A BABY.
I agree.
That's why I want those who gestate children... held responsible for
their actions.
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
> > is not a human being, only potential.
>
> If the foetus has come to term, then intent comes into play. In that there
> was the intention to carry the pregnancy to full term. Thus there is a
> responsibility for the well being of that potential human being.
I LOVE it!
I have some news for both of you: MOST women don't care about abortion
rights. Heck, most women over thirty I meet are "biological clock
tickers." Yes, abortion rights sounded nice back when women were
complaining about EVERYTHING men did (even things they now demand
today such as their doors held open) but now... many have come to
realize that they don't have much in common with the movement.
For THOSE women, crack babies are NOT worth protecting abortion
rights over. I will ask 30 something women at work a simple question:
Would you happily give up your legal right to an abortion
in order to legally eliminate the problem of crack babies.
I will post the answer.
mark
do...@letterbox.com
In article <6f0ql7$d...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> a crime at all. I think you're making fruit salad
> because you seem to be mixing apples with oranges.
> >
> >I dont think you can rely on intent...although you _should_ take into
> >account any mitigating factors....The same way that parents can and
> should>be made accountable for neglect, follows here. In effect, crack
> babies>experience neglect....a lack of concern/awareness as to the
> effects of>their behaviour on the child they are responsible for.
> >> > --
>
> Criminal actions are to PUNISH THE ACTOR. In that
> regard, civilized society demands that the actor have
> who is making a sandwich and drops his knife, accidently
> stabs the foot of a house guest hasn't committed a
> crime......the guest may sue him for a number of
> things. It can easily be shown that those who take
> coke, don't do it in order to kill children. First,
> one cannot kill another human being by ingesting coke
> alone. Secondly, the motivation for ingesting coke
> is not a human being, only potential.
>
> Lefty
>
Lefty, have you ever seen a baby going through drug/alcohol withdrawl? It is
probably the most unpleasent sight I have ever witnessed. Following your
argument, there is no such thing as manslaughter (causing death without
intent). What if the mother gave the baby drugs after the birth, the effect
will be the same, so why is it child abuse after birth but not before. (this
all ignores the fact that possesion of cocaine is illegal, as is the use of
it).
I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a person
has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I agree with this.
If a person wants to use drugs or smoke or whatever that is their right, AS
LONG AS they don't harm anyone else doing so. And doing drugs while pregnant
DOES lead to the harm of somebody else.
"But that's just my opinion"
Dolph
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3513f117...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>
>> ----------
>> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>> specific intent to do those things. I would say
>> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
>> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>> since there is no child until there IS a child.
>
>kills the child that she is pregnant with...he really can't be
>charged with harming or killing that child, since by your reasoning he
>is a child???
---------
Some states inclue late term fetal murder as murder of
an "unborn child". It is NOT something I agree with,
nevertheless a viable human fetus IS in some states given
the status of such should a person (MAN OR WOMAN) take it's
potential life away.
>
>To answer my own question....yes, he can be charged and there are
>cases where men have been charged for killing or harming an unborn
>baby.
----------
An "unborn baby" is still not given any human rights,
as such, but the purposeful killing of such is considered
murder in those states that honor such.
>
>So what makes the difference when it's a woman??
It doesn't. If a woman kicks another woman in the
stomach and kills her "unborn child"....the states
that honor such may consider that murder of an
unborn child. However, the unborn child will have
to have been VIABLE, and it does not acquire any
status ....i.e. that of having any human rights
.....since its life is still ONLY POTENTIAL.
------------------------------
There is HEAPS of>information out there about what happens to the
unborn baby when a>pregnant woman smokes, drinks or takes drugs.
--------
It won't really matter. The next thing you know
folks will be wanting to tell a woman what she can
eat, drink, when she can fuck and what vitamins she
must take. That which is part of your body cannot
be easily regulated by another. That which you harm
in another CAN be regulated.
------------------------
>
>There is absoloutly no excuse...and it's time that society (and
>feminist women in particular) stopped making excuses for women who
>willfully endanger their unborn children in this way. There is only
>one victim in this equation and that's the unborn baby.
What unborn baby? Until it is born it only has the
status of fetus.....unless another wants to take it
from you. Then the courts will look at it as you
MIGHT have looked at it....as an unborn child who
has no rights. You see, the courts won't apply some
value to the gelatinous mass growing within, UNLESS
someone else takes it from you....a non-consentual act
of killing potential human life.
-------------------
>
>Saying that 'there is no child until there is a child' is just a
>claptrap way of fudging the issue.....and is about as useful as tits
>on a bull.
>
>Karen
---------
Gee...those tits have worked so far. The other bulls
are rutting around the barnyard, scratching and
sniffing but leaving all the pregnant cows
alone....
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3513f790...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen>>In article <6ev30s$c...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>>
>>> In <6eubvn$l7b$1...@news2.infoave.net> Neal Hunt
>>> >> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
>>> >> if that damage was caused in utero.
>>> >
>>>
>>> What's wrong; surely you're not suggesting that crack
>>> mothers are not wealthy enough to have deep pockets.
:]
>>>
>>> Lefty
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Don't you know, Lefty? Crack mothers are the ones who drive Rolls
and throw>>lavish crack parties of their friends on their 5th Avenue
terraces! They have>>ENDLESS financial resources.. WHAT!!! No????
Do you mean to tell me this>>isn't so?! I'm SHOCKED!!! Do you mean to
say that a crack mother probably>>can't afford a good legal
defense?!!??
>>
>
>So Stacy, what legal...or for that matter, moral defenses, can you
>come up with, for a woman who endangers her baby's life through the
>use of crack when she is pregnant???
>
>Karen
---------
There IS NO MORAL DEFENSE. But, there is a legal one,
that's based in solid constitutional law. If you give
a man an inch in deciding what goes on in a woman's body
he'll take a mile. Women have no intention of giving
up bodily autonomy so men can make choices for us about
our bodies. Yes....they can regulate what drugs we
take....just like they regulate what drugs MEN take, but
they cannot decide whether the life we carry within is
going to come to fruition. Because of that, there is no
way to judge WHEN harm will happen. If there IS no baby,
there is no harm to a child from coke.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3513f614...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen
Hayward) writes:
>
>On 21 Mar 1998 05:44:49 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>> Sure I do. Women should be held JUST AS accountable
>> as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
>> crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
>> will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
>> Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>
>What the heck are 'male perpetrated crimes' and 'female perpetrated
>crimes'?????????
>
> For example...if a male and a female go out shoplifting and are
>caught...the nature of the crime does not change just because one of
>the particapants was a female and the other a male.
>
>Karen
---------
How many men do you know who are arrested for what
they put into their bodies? I'm not talking about
drug possession....or drug sales... I'm talking
about simply being addicted to drugs. When we start
arresting male addicts just for being addicted and
make them stay in jail for nine months, perhaps
we'll have something to discuss. Or, howzabout
arresting men for taking drugs while their fucking
their brains out; maybe THEY are contributing to
the co-creation of a drug addicted baby, or a baby
harmed by the man's drug use.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3519fd5f...@news.idt.net> kille...@prom.com (Brain Death)
writes:
>
>On 21 Mar 1998 03:41:24 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway), wrote:
>
>> Well, there are several legal theories the ACLU may
>> use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
>
pro-choice movement>uses against the pro-lifers is, "They're so
concerned with 'unborn children', but the>moment those kids are born,
they want to turn their backs on them." (i.e. don't want to
>give their parents money to raise them). But here's a classic case
where Lefty and her>friends have all the concern in the world for that
child once it's born (they want to give>it cradle to grave health care,
including, ironically, pre-natal care, which by their definition falls
outside of life), but they don't want to offer it any protection
against>the effects of drugs and alcohol in the womb, which could
impair that future child's>ability to learn far more than not getting a
hot breakfast at school. I am disgusted with>what you are prepared to
defend.
We cannot legislate morality; all we can do is provide
laws that apply EQUALLY to both genders and, hopefully,
educate those whose moral convictions and/or ability
to cope are less than our own.
---------------
>
>> Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
>> should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
>> the fetus while not discriminating against women,
>> be my guest.
>
>Shouldn't be too hard--who was responsible for introducing the alcohol
or other drug into>her system?
It isn't quite that simple. Drug addicted men ALSO
contribute DNA .....are we prepared to trace back that
within the child to make sure the proud poppa WASN'T
drug addicted at conception? I didn't think so.
------------------------------
If a woman is forced by a man to drink or smoke crack while pregnant,
the man>is responsible for the damage done to the baby, or should I say
fetus. If she is not>forced by another person, then she herself is the
responsible agent.
If she collects wild mushrooms and damages her child
by eating a toadstool by mistake, I think she deserves
the gas chamber. And, if she is painting the child's
nursery, and she raises the paintbrush above her head
tangleing the cord around the child's neck....off with
her head. Perhaps, one beer could result in brain
damage, so if she's at Disneyland on a hot day, and
has one.....she should be stoned.
------------------------------
So a man could be>guilty of the crime and a woman could be guilty of
the crime. Granted, in most cases it's>the woman who will be guilty,
but then we have a lot more male rapists in prison than>female rapists.
There are biological differences that make each crime more likely to
>happen by one gender than the other. So what? You want to open up
the jail cells until>we've got exactly the same number of men and women
rapists in jail? (Silly question--you>probably agree with the ACLU
that there should be no jails at all).
---------
No....I don't think that's their position at all. I
have no problem with putting more women in jail...as
long as it's done CONSTITUTIONALLY.
------------
>
>> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
>> Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
>> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
>> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
>> he/she may not be charged with such.
>> --------------------
>
>So by your notion of the justice system, a man gets in a car drunk and
kills someone,>there's no criminal intent, it just happened and we let
the guy walk away, right? Maybe>in Chappaquiddick that's the law, but
not where I live.
I explained that in a previous post...* see
Depraved heart murder.....intent is STILL
required but is derived in another manner,
one that cannot apply to a woman who has a beer.
-----------------
>
>> You are certainly welcome to TRY, but the fact
>> remains that it won't help you very much since
>> abortion is fast becoming a private matter.
>
>If these are the logical consequences of legalized abortion *as a
constitutional right*,>then maybe we really need the constitutional
right eliminated, which still doesn't seem
>impossible. I don't think a lot of the states would rush to outlaw
abortion, but they'd>sure as hell outlaw this kind of behavior.
>
>BD
---------
We shall see. The law that I've seen pass constitutional
muster on this issue has been based on criminal action
and not on the gestation status of the person.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <199803212134...@ladder01.news.aol.com> pa...@aol.com
(PangK) writes:
>
>>From: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
>
>>A woman who is gestating, may cease
>> that gestation at any time until the third trimester,
>> and after the third trimester, if she has just about
>> ANY medical reason.
>
>
> And she can do it DURING birth by getting a doctor or nurse to RAM
a steel>spike through the infant's head and we'll just call that "POST
PARTEM CHOICE">Lefty. Ya gals got LOTS to be PROUD of... Now what was
it you were sayiong>about child absue????? You are SO GENUINE on the
issues!
--------
Very much so....when there IS A CHILD...there is one.
Until that time....all we have is a spectrum of potential.
If you want to monitor THAT ...start at the point on the
spectrum that regulates male ejaculate.
-----------
>
> You BRAG about shoving that steel spike into a baby's haead and
sucking>out the brain just become some BITCH wants to get rid of the
baby. PROUD!! Want>it as as "RIGHT!" ... Sorry>Lefty, IMHO you have NO
room to be judgemental of a parent who spanks a child>they love! I
don't see what YOU advocate as LOVE!!!!!!
------------
I advocate taking care of CHILDREN, Pangfucker. Until
there is one.....there isn't one. If you started regulating
your ejaculate the same way you want to monitor women's
by products....you might be on the road to getting
somewhere.
Lefty
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <marks-21039...@ip-55-073.sna.primenet.com>
ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>
(edit)
>First off, I'm not calling all women crack moms:
Gee, that's real accomodatin' Mark. I take my
hat off to you.
---------------
I'm only suggesting
>that women be held responsible for their _individual_ actions
>as much as individual men are.
I totally agree; where there are RIGHTS are duties
far behind.
-------------
>
>Secondly, men face a different set of choices than women. If men
>were able to collect welfare and marry for money, a lot less of
>them would be committing crimes. You even put 2+2 together when
>you defend welfare (remember the "murder us in our beds threat?")
--------
Indeed. How does that apply. Social choices/civil rigths
apples/oranges.
----------
>
>Finally, men contribute a huge amount of money in the form of taxes
>and providing for their families. (Something even you realize as
>you cling to Patriarchal perks like alimony and child-support.)
---------
Men and women do pay taxes. your point?
>
>>..either
>> THAT or tax them more.
>
>We already are paying more taxes. That's why you support all these
>govt. funded programs that benefit mostly women. Let's move on:
Ah, well the tax base is gender neutral Mark; in
that regard a woman and man in the same bracket
would tend to pay the same. We wouldn't want
to penalize her more....would we :]
-------------------
>
>> Of course, I would never sug-
>> gest that since...well...I KNOW the Constitution.
>
>You may know CERTAIN INTERPRETATIONS of the Constitution, but
>the right to gestate crack babies certainly isn't one I've seen.
----------
Sure it is. What are you going to DO stop her
in delivery? What she doesn't have is the right
to buy or use crack. What folks need to do is
concentrate on the crime. The gestation is not
a good area of redress since there are those
darned pesky human rights issues.
-------------------------
>
>In fact, nearly every right in the constitution is subject to social
>order constraints. A supreme court defined right (and one HIGHLY
>dependant upon political nomination at that) just doesn't seem
>well qualified as an absolute right. Especially when prostitution,
>drug use, and draft avoidance are all illegal.
==========
Well the right to reproductive autonomy is narrowly
tailored; not too smart to try to apply it to those
other things...altho...I'm all for decriminalizing
prostitution and drug use.
------------------
>
>I know the constitution too: 209, Hopwood vs. texas for starters.
>Look 'em up.
>
>> Too bad Pete Wilson didn't have me on his team when he
>> foolishly drafted 187. :]
>
>A liberal judge would have struck down the law regardless. You know
>this, and I know this.
---------
Then how come you kept mentioning 187 as being
okie dokie in your previous posts. Even all
right wing judges wouldn't have been able to
deal with the health ramifications invovled
in that stupid stupid law.
------------------------
>
>States cooperate with the Feds all the time to report lawbreakers:
>Deadbeat dads and driver's licenses, for example.
>
>Mark
=========
How does that apply to the right to privacy? Last
time I looked a person's body was more fundamental
than a mere privilege...driving.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> >Yeah... right. Like anyone who knows your position on 209 believes
>> that.
>>
>> That's exactly right. I want the workplace to be
>> free of BIAS so that folks are hired based on what
>> they can do rather than on what's between their legs
>> or the color of their skin.
>
>So do I. That's what I voted for 209: To end all _legal_ bias.
>
the only thing that changes is the lack of
ability to challenge that bias.
------------------------
>If you want to talk about hidden, social bias. I'm afraid that
>the state can't do anything about that. :-) I keep telling you
>to not compare apples and oranges. I wish you would listen to me. :-)
-------
Not being able to find equality in the workplace
violates equal protection. That's hardly a social
expectation.... but ....you are free to think what
you like until you hear the back doors crack open.
And THAT'S JUST CA....Other states are laughing at
us.
-------------
>
>> >But that doesn't change the fact that a crack baby has been
created...>> >and NOTHING was done about it.
>>
>> So....DO something about it. Create safe houses for
>> crack-using mommies to be that they can voluntarily
>> enter.....with people there who will prevent them from
>> using.
>
>Ahhh yes! If there is ANY perfect example of Lefty's attitude that
>the world owes women a living, here it is.
Not at all....It was YOU who said you wanted to help.
Sheesh! Looks like all you REALLY want to do is to
blame women and take away their equal rights. Big
surprise there.
----------
>
>The state already seems willing to provide such a system for them.
>Heck, the women don't want to go. If they did, the state wouldn't
>be seeking an injunction against them.
---------
No....the state wants to incarcerate them, and/or
force them into some form of rehab or institution.
Or...to criminalize that which they can do with
their own bodies. If they have voluntary centers
in safe houses, these women might be very willing
to go. Also, education is very important. Here's
a thought....if you want a legal way to force women
into things (this shoul appeal to you Mark), have
addiction declared a mental illness, and take them
into protective custody to protect society. :] Of
course, an ACLU type might want to compare the number
of male addicts you are incarcerating.
-----------------------------
>
>> Put more money into prenatal education and
>> screening programs. I don't think you're willing to
>> put your money where your mouth is.
>
>And since when do _I_ owe these women a living? Or healthy children?
You don't...so stop pretending you want to help when
all you really want is to deprive women of equal rights.
-------------------
>
>Lefty, you seem to think that women have ZERO responsibility to
>gestate healthy children, zip. That unless the state pays for women
>to do a proper job, they won't.
---------
I did. I took my little vitamins ...gave up coffee
for 18 grueling months for each child (nursing) and
gained and lost about 20 lbs with one and 32 with
the other. I had financial support...my own and
that of my mate. I also had emotional support from
friends and my folks. Not all women are as lucky
as me.
>
>Tell you what: LET these women breed crack babies. A person who
>abuses their freedom, doesn't have it for very long. I consider
>them a representative of your movement.
Well, there ARE things we can do....but lets
do it wisely and not by trying to make women
second class citizens, which is JUST what you
seem bent on doing.
---------------------
>
>If YOU don't want your movement to get a bad name, YOU put up the
>money. I'm not cleaning up your messes.
--------
It's not up to feminists....to clean up crack moms.
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that
feminism is responsible for the woes of the world?
Seeking and maintaining equal rights takes up all
of our time there. Now, folks who ARE feminist,
may also want to help educate crack moms.
-----------------------
>
>> >Welcome to the "brave new world" of crack babies, mauranding
teenage>> children>of welfare moms, and other "benefits" that society
is pinning> right>on the shoulders of the feminist movement.
>>
>> Better yet....learn the difference between valid law
>> and UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
>
>*yawn* We're not discussing the law... we're discussing the world
>your supreme court created absolute right is offering us.
--------
Well, that means you have to follow legal channels
to correct problems....not on the backs of only one
gender, but so that the problem is addressed without
the need to take away fundamental rights.
--------------------------
>
>If the people don't want to live in it... they'll decide. enjoy.
>
> > For example, a crack using
>> mommy CAUGHT using .....may have, as a parole/probation
>> deal....have to check herself into a rehab....OR get
>> less prison time by staying in prison UNTIL her baby
>> is born. All kinds of possibilities. ..
>
>Or maybe she might just get pregnant in order to push her jailers
>into making a deal. This system can create even MORE crack babies.
>Isn't logic a complex thing?
---------
Well, she can bonk a prison guard with or without
a deal pending AND with or without your permission.
What is complex, Mark, is life, love and law....and
possibly a few other things.
----------------------
>
>>..Ones that don't offend the Constitution.
>
>I don't see the right to gestate crack babies ANYWHERE in the
constitution.
That's only because you don't know where to look.
:] (or choose not to look)
>I think that you believe EVERYTHING you want is constitutional.
>Like a religious fanatic, you aren't interested in what the words
>SAY so much as what some of your buddies interpret them to mean.
--------
Not exactly. I'd like a small chateau in Provence,
but I haven't managed to find that in there yet.
-------------------
>
>Clarence Thomas, for example, may disagree with you. And yes, he
>has been writing a number of opinions lately. He has a lifetime
>to build up his career. And with his alleged sexual harassment
>crimes relatively tiny compared to say... another official...
>I think that your robed friends won't agree with you as much
>as you thought.
---------
What makes you think that Ginsberg and Souter would
let Thomas run amok....even though Souter is not
liberal....he's quite astute....and then there's
O'conner....who never fails to surprise. No...I'm
not worried, especially since poor old Thomas must
have peed his pants when he had to recuse himself
from the Citadel case. As to sexual harrassment, I
would suspect the court will not swing very far to
the left.....and I hope they would not. We're already
about where I feel comfortable.
-------------------
>
>Which would make sense considering that the people are beginning
>to feel the same way. I would like to KISS those crack moms:
>they have done very much to show what feminism _IS_.
--------
What is it you think they're proving...that lack
of education, and poverty provides a good way to
raise kids? I would be willing to bet you that
most crack moms would have difficulty spelling
feminism.
------------------
>
> >Also, remember, a
>> baby isn't BORN crack addicted until there IS A BABY.
>
>And men aren't held responsible for their actions prior to birth
>but after conception? Care for me to quote from you?
--------
Actions that are causative to co-creation can be
easily proven with a simple blood test. A baby
that doesn't exist has no complaint.
---------------------------
>
>Tell you what: I think the state should put the child in someone
else's>care and then have her pay child-support for the next 40 years
or so.
---------
I'm perfectly ok with that solution...but let's not
forget daddy....he can also pay support; after all
it was also HIS choice to put his seed into crackmom.
------------------
>There... that's CIVIL law. Trust me... after living like a slave
>for 40 years... she'll WISH she had been thrown in jail! :-)
As I said Mark. I don't have any problem with that
as long as it doesn't interfere with any possibility
of adoption....which is in the child's best interests.
------------------------
>
>> Since a fetus isn't a baby, it's only a possibility
>> of human life. That creates a real problem for judges
>> who would like to incarcerate BASED ON A BABY.
>
>I agree.
>
>That's why I want those who gestate children... held responsible for
>their actions.
>
>Mark
Me too. Along with play-a-long poppa.
Lefty
Max Burke
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6f1ou0$8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <3513f614...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen
>Hayward) writes:
> For example...if a male and a female go out shoplifting and are
>caught...the nature of the crime does not change just because one of
>the particapants was a female and the other a male.
> ---------
> How many men do you know who are arrested for what
> they put into their bodies? I'm not talking about
> drug possession....or drug sales... I'm talking
> about simply being addicted to drugs.
Dont men get arrested for being drunk in public or for DUI in your world lefty?
Dont the police arrest male drug addicts for possession of drugs, dont those same male addicts get sent to prison on being convicted of illegal drug use?
> When we start
> arresting male addicts just for being addicted and
> make them stay in jail for nine months, perhaps
> we'll have something to discuss. Or, howzabout
> arresting men for taking drugs while their fucking
> their brains out; maybe THEY are contributing to
> the co-creation of a drug addicted baby, or a baby
> harmed by the man's drug use.
Drug addicts (male and female) get arrested for the possession AND use of illegal drugs lefty, their addiction may be taken into account when sentencing them (and lead to a lesser sentence), but none of them are arrested simply because they are addicts...
and as they get arrested for possession and use of illegal substances, that would be grounds for intent to do harm, to themselves, and for women to their unborn child.... (Unless you claim taking drugs doesn't do any harm....)
No drug addict can claim they did not know they would do harm to themselves or their unborn children.... the inconvenience of the woman drug addict being pregnant with a fetus (which does not have legal protection as a human being), does not alter the fact that the end result is a drug addicted baby, caused by the mothers intent to get 'high' on drugs when pregnant.... whether she knew she was pregnant or not is irrelevant, as it is with the drunk driver who kills/injures others, as they also never knew their intent to drive while drunk was going to result in someone else's death and/or injury....
In short not knowing the consequences of their actions is no excuse, no reason to deny that they have caused harm to an innocent victim....
This belief of yours is flying like a lead balloon lefty.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism.
Carl Jung (1875-1961), Swiss psychiatrist. Memories, Dreams, Reflections, ch. 12 (1963).
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Replace the obvious with IHUG to reply via email
Visit my Photo Gallery at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke/index.htm
Max Burke
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6f1onj$s...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
> ---------
> There IS NO MORAL DEFENSE. But, there is a legal one,
> that's based in solid constitutional law. If you give
> a man an inch in deciding what goes on in a woman's body
> he'll take a mile. Women have no intention of giving
> up bodily autonomy so men can make choices for us about
> our bodies. Yes....they can regulate what drugs we
> take....just like they regulate what drugs MEN take, but
> they cannot decide whether the life we carry within is
> going to come to fruition. Because of that, there is no
> way to judge WHEN harm will happen. If there IS no baby,
> there is no harm to a child from coke.
That'd be right, lefty's feminism doesn't have any moral code at all, it's just too inconvenient to take a moral stand, that would make it very difficult to justify things like AA, abortion, and apparently drug taking pregnant women....
But morality must always be applied where men appear to have an advantage, i.e pornography, SAH women, the mythical patriarchy.....
The end result of a pregnancy is a baby lefty, no mater how inconvenient that is for your beliefs.....
Your paranoia about how men are out to take all your rights a really beginning to show on this one....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error of judgment.
Philip K. Dick (1928-82), U.S. science fiction writer. A Scanner Darkly, “Author’s Note” (1977).
Max Burke
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6f1phe$s...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <3519fd5f...@news.idt.net> kille...@prom.com (Brain Death)
>writes:
>>Shouldn't be too hard--who was responsible for introducing the alcohol
>>or other drug into>her system?
> It isn't quite that simple. Drug addicted men ALSO
> contribute DNA .....are we prepared to trace back that
> within the child to make sure the proud poppa WASN'T
> drug addicted at conception? I didn't think so.
> ------------------------------
Its not the drug addicted men fathering these children who turn them into drug addict's lefty, it's the mothers who continue to take the drugs while pregnant.... In this case the only one responsible is the mother, no blame can be attributed to the father for the drug addiction of the baby....
Reading your post's that fact is what's really getting up your nose isn't it, the fact that men cant be held responsible for drug addicted babies....
> ---------
> No....I don't think that's their position at all. I
> have no problem with putting more women in jail...as
> long as it's done CONSTITUTIONALLY.
> ------------
What's unconstitutional about jailing drug addicted pregnant women, who are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for the possession and use of illegal drugs lefty.... The laws against drug use are duly constituted laws under the constitution of the USA aren't they.....
>>
>> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
>> Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
>> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
>> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
>> he/she may not be charged with such.
>> --------------------
The fact they take drugs knowing full well that the are harmful (to the point of causing death), to themselves, and any unborn child is proof of intent to cause harm.... (You cant tell me women drug addicts dont know the dangers of taking drugs, to themselves, and their unborn child, they dont even have the dubious excuse of ignorance in this case...)
Just as a drunk driver knows they can and do cause death and injury, because of their intent to drive while drunk, so the drug addicted mother knows she is guilty of causing injury to her unborn child....
I would just love to see a defence lawyer try to claim his drug addicted client did NOT know the danger they were putting themselves and their unborn child in, when they took the drugs....
snip....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Let us not forget who we are. Drug abuse is a repudiation of everything America is.
Ronald Reagan (b. 1911), U.S. Republican politician, president. Joint television broadcast with Nancy Reagan, fall 1986, announcing a national crusade against the use of drugs. Quoted in: Lewis H. Lapham, Money and Class in America, ch. 5, sct. 1 (1988).
PangK
>From: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
>Newsgroups: soc.men
SUBJECT IS: What has become known as Patrial birth abortion.
> I advocate taking care of CHILDREN, Pangfucker. Until
> there is one.....there isn't one.
SHould I call you Hemingcunt? I do SO enjoy your
defense of this BARBARIC practice. Having someone ram a hollow steel spike into
the skull of a 9th month "fetus" and
sucking the brain out because MOMMY wants it!
Yes, Carol ANn, you gals display SUCH "moral superiority" to
us men. Your COMPASSION for CHILDREN and your regard for human life and your
HUMANITY is noted. I do SO enjoy
your ACT of moral superiority.
>If you started regulating
> your ejaculate the same way you want to monitor women's
> by products....you might be on the road to getting
> somewhere.
99% of the women seeking PARTIAL BIRTH abortiuons were MARRIED women
Carol Ann..... Often this
proceedure was done AGAINST the father's desires. ANd
NOT for any VALID medical reason! But the CONVINIENCE
of the MOTHER!
It's a real BITCH Carol when you go to Vegas and put that dollar in the
slot. When you don't win. YOU would toss a shit fit and demand it back! When
you make a baby you don't always get a perfect one. MURDER is NOT okay! It is
NOT a right! ANd
that form of MURDER, Ms. Hemingway is WAY, WAY beyond
the beatsiality of even Hitler's GOONS! Even the WORST
of Hitler's mopnsters would have said that THAT was "TOO BARBARIC" even for
them! But YOU rejoice in it! Sort of
tells me where you sit on the humanity scale.
Paul Robbins
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <6f0dff$g7u$1...@gte2.gte.net> Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
> writes:
>
> (edit)
> >
> >Lefty's problem here is that only women will ever get charged with
> >harming their unborn children because only women gestate (men don't),
> so>obviously that's an unfair situation for Lefty. It unfairly
> >discriminates against women. Lefty cares not a whit what happens to
> the>fetus. But the woman did not abort, obviously intended to have the
> >child, and chose to take crack. If the baby is harmed, in my view it's
> a>crime. Letting her off because she's an irresponsible drug addict is
> >absurd.
> >
> >Paul R
>
> --------
> that gestation at any time until the third trimester,
> and after the third trimester, if she has just about
> harm to a child cannot be shown until there IS A CHILD.
> Until you are able to discern the difference between
> a human being and "potential"....please don't waste
> your potential by ejaculating into a centerfold.
>
> Lefty
>
And don't waste your time posting your feminist and self-indulgent views
that babies need no protection from crack-ingesting mothers. What I find
abhorrent here is your incredible indifference to the suffering of these
children which masquerades as some type of concern for women's rights.
The hell with the kids, as long as women have rights. Let them
suffer--but don't take away women's rights. Postings such as these are
why feminism is now on the decline--you've shown us its ugly face, its
indifference to the suffering of children.
Paul R
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> > is not a human being, only potential.
>>
there> was the intention to carry the pregnancy to full term. Thus
being.
No intent can be established just by the viability
of a fetus BECAUSE:
1. Women miscarry, even late in pregnancy.
2. Abortions happen late in pregnancy for a
variety of health reasons INCLUDING the
mental health of the mother.
3. Women have delivered full term babies without
ever even knowing they were pregnant....some
intent there.
4. Etc.
>
>I LOVE it!
>
>I have some news for both of you: MOST women don't care about abortion
>rights. Heck, most women over thirty I meet are "biological clock
>tickers." Yes, abortion rights sounded nice back when women were
>complaining about EVERYTHING men did (even things they now demand
>today such as their doors held open) but now... many have come to
>realize that they don't have much in common with the movement.
---------
Sure they do. A woman who feels her biological clock
going off has just recently learned that she can pro-
create until she's (what was...) 50 or 60 years old,
if need be. So, ladies, if you're feeling a little
lonely....just freeze those suckers. Also, artificial
insemination has been available for quite some time.
So, I'm not at all convinced that women are leaving
feminism in order to return to daddy knows best. That's
just what the "old" boys want to have us believe.
------------------------
>
>For THOSE women, crack babies are NOT worth protecting abortion
>rights over. I will ask 30 something women at work a simple question:
>Would you happily give up your legal right to an abortion
>in order to legally eliminate the problem of crack babies.
>
>I will post the answer.
>
>mark
----------
Hahahaha! Mark, they can't give up THEIR RIGHTS for
the simple reason that they CAN'T HAVE MINE.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f1qlc$ij6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> do...@letterbox.com writes:
>
>In article <6f0ql7$d...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>> In <35138723...@globalnet.co.uk> Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >
>> is not a human being, only potential.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>
>Lefty, have you ever seen a baby going through drug/alcohol withdrawl?
Yes, and on more than one occasion.
It is>probably the most unpleasent sight I have ever witnessed.
Following your argument, there is no such thing as manslaughter
(causing death without>intent). What if the mother gave the baby drugs
after the birth, the effect>will be the same, so why is it child abuse
after birth but not before.
Because the mother would have to have INTENT to harm
a child. If the child doesn't exist and may not ever
exist (sometimes drugs even kill the fetus) there can
be (at the most...and even that would be hard to prove)
INTENT to get rid of the fetus.
-----------------------------
(this>all ignores the fact that possesion of cocaine is illegal, as
is the use of>it).
Indeed....AND that is where the action really is.
>
>I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a
person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
agree with this.
I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
specific and very clear that in matters of reproductive
procedures ALL PEOPLE have the right to decide and
determine which, if any, will apply. The right is not
as general as you might think.
------------------------------
>If a person wants to use drugs or smoke or whatever that is their
right, AS>LONG AS they don't harm anyone else doing so. And doing
drugs while pregnant>DOES lead to the harm of somebody else.
>
>"But that's just my opinion"
>
>Dolph
--------
And, most anti-choice folk would agree with you
because they see the fetus as deserving of greater
rights than a human woman. It's not all that
surprising. The fact remains that unless there IS
A PERSON a mother would not be able to INTEND harm
to one. We plain don't know her state of mind.
For example, I'll pretend to be a crack head mom
at a party. "Hey man ....give me some o that...
I'm going in to get rid of this thing....tomorrow"
Intent ....that is the big problem. Of course the
real issue is still what it always HAS BEEN....not
the helping of mothers and children, but the CONTROL
OF WOMEN.
Lefty
Anonymous
<3514c4aa....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
<6eu6n8$p...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:17:02 GMT, kille...@prom.com (Brain Death)
wrote:
> On 20 Mar 1998 16:49:44 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway), wrote:
>
> > Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
> > specific intent to do those things. I would say
> > the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
> > women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
> > same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> > who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> > since there is no child until there IS a child.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be free to drink, do drugs, etc., while
> pregnant, and that society should look the other way, because her fetus is not a child
> (yet), and therefore can't be harmed? I know what you're doing here--trying to be
> consistent on abortion. But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
> steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance from reluctantly
> pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
That is exactly what Lefty and associates want and have or are getting.
What has not been posted so far (that I have read) is that men will have
to pay the bill, women want to make all the calls but refuse to be
financially/morally liable for them.
(Begin sarcasm)If a pregnant woman is beaten by a man so severly that
she aborts, he would only be liable for assault and battery on the
woman, nothing about the (whatever the hell you want to call an unborn
to salve your conscience) baby. It is nothing.
So if a woman turns up pregnant and the father wants abortion, he only
has to beat the shit outta her and he only serves for A&B. Not bad,
still not equal but better.(end sarcasm)
>
> > Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
> > A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> > if that damage was caused in utero.
>
> Well, if that isn't a typical lawyerly solution--the kids can sue, so what's the big deal
> if they're born addicted to crack or alcohol. And of course, it is fortunate that most
> crack moms have plenty of assets that the child's guardian-at-law can attach.
>
> BD
Ask her who is to pay the extra medical requirements for a born addicted
or deformed (through purposeful injustion of some substance).
It sure as hell won't be the person that caused it!
Phil
NospamP...@bigfoot.com
Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/
Anonymous
<3514c4aa....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
<6eu6n8$p...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <3525ea7d...@news.idt.net>
On 21 Mar 1998 03:41:24 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
wrote:
> In <3525ea7d...@news.idt.net> kille...@prom.com (Brain Death)
> writes:
> >
> >On 20 Mar 1998 16:49:44 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
> Hemingway), wrote:
> >
> >> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
> >> specific intent to do those things. I would say
> >> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
> >> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
> >> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
> >> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
> >> since there is no child until there IS a child.
> >
> >Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be free to drink, do
> drugs, etc., while>pregnant, and that society should look the other
> way, because her fetus is not a child>(yet), and therefore can't be
> harmed?
>
> Well, there are several legal theories the ACLU may
> use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
> Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
> should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
> the fetus while not discriminating against women,
> be my guest.
> -----------------------
>
>
> I know what you're doing here--trying to beconsistent on abortion.
>
> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law.
> Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
> he/she may not be charged with such.
> --------------------
>
> But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
> >steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance
> from reluctantly>pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
Only women are free to make decisions that affect others.
Using the logic that there was no intent, you could argue that men don't
have to pay C$ because they didn't intend to make a baby.
Feminazi want it both ways, or neither, at their sole descretion.
>
> You are certainly welcome to TRY, but the fact
> remains that it won't help you very much since
> abortion is fast becoming a private matter.
> ------------------
>
>
> >
> >> Of course, a child CAN sue civilly thru a guardian
> >> A.L. ....if someone has caused them damage....even
> >> if that damage was caused in utero.
> >
> >Well, if that isn't a typical lawyerly solution--the kids can sue, so
> what's the big deal>if they're born addicted to crack or alcohol. And
> of course, it is fortunate that most>crack moms have plenty of assets
> that the child's guardian-at-law can attach.
> >
> >BD
>
> Indeed. It's not MY LAW! Don't shoot the messenger.
>
> Lefty
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
> >I have some news for both of you: MOST women don't care about abortion
> >rights. Heck, most women over thirty I meet are "biological clock
> >tickers." Yes, abortion rights sounded nice back when women were
> >complaining about EVERYTHING men did (even things they now demand
> >today such as their doors held open) but now... many have come to
> >realize that they don't have much in common with the movement.
>
> going off has just recently learned that she can pro-
> create until she's (what was...) 50 or 60 years old,
> if need be.
And you can leave your eggs in the fridge for that period of time
too, Lefty. I wouldn't want to eat an omelette cooked from them
though. :-)
> So, ladies, if you're feeling a little
> lonely....just freeze those suckers.
Not doable at this period in time. There are even questions
about frozen sperm viability and chromosome damage.
> Also, artificial
> insemination has been available for quite some time.
> So, I'm not at all convinced that women are leaving
> feminism in order to return to daddy knows best. That's
> just what the "old" boys want to have us believe.
You are free to disagree Lefty. Like I keep telling you: If women
such as this can't _handle_ equality, that's not MY problem.
It's YOUR movement's problem. Let's continue:
> >For THOSE women, crack babies are NOT worth protecting abortion
> >rights over. I will ask 30 something women at work a simple question:
> >Would you happily give up your legal right to an abortion
> >in order to legally eliminate the problem of crack babies.
> >
> >I will post the answer.
>
> Hahahaha! Mark, they can't give up THEIR RIGHTS for
> the simple reason that they CAN'T HAVE MINE.
Ever hear of the vote, Lefty?
If so-called "rights" and "entitlements" can be voted and created
through a series of judicial appointments and legislation...
THEY CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY.
Quite frankly, I rather LIKE the idea of a woman's absolute right
to gestate crack babies. Please feel free to wear it around your
movement's neck... like an albatross.
Mark
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f2nrt$jji$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> "Max Burke"
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes:
>
>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message =
><6f1ou0$8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>In <3513f614...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com
(Karen
>
>> For example...if a male and a female go out shoplifting and are
>>caught...the nature of the crime does not change just because one of
>>the particapants was a female and the other a male.
>
>> ---------
>> How many men do you know who are arrested for what
>> they put into their bodies? I'm not talking about
>> drug possession....or drug sales... I'm talking
>
>Dont men get arrested for being drunk in public or for DUI in your
of drugs, dont =>those same male addicts get sent to prison on being
convicted of illegal =>drug use?
----------
Well then....you made my argument for me....thanks.
When we arrest and convict women for the same charges
men face, we can DETAIN THEM. That's what I've
been saying...all along. We don't CONVICT men for
the personal choices they make regarding what they
ingest, UNLESS what they ingest is illegal. The
same law applies to women. So, when you convict
a woman, it has to be done with the same standards
in mind.
-------------------------------
>
>> When we start
>> arresting male addicts just for being addicted and
>> make them stay in jail for nine months, perhaps=20
>> we'll have something to discuss. Or, howzabout
>> arresting men for taking drugs while their fucking
>> their brains out; maybe THEY are contributing to
>> the co-creation of a drug addicted baby, or a baby
>> harmed by the man's drug use. =20
>
>Drug addicts (male and female) get arrested for the possession AND use
=of illegal drugs lefty, their addiction may be taken into account when
=>sentencing them (and lead to a lesser sentence), but none of them are
=arrested simply because they are addicts...>and as they get arrested
for possession and use of illegal substances, =
>that would be grounds for intent to do harm, to themselves, and for =
>women to their unborn child.... (Unless you claim taking drugs doesn't
=>do any harm....)
------------
Women will continue to be arrested and convicted under
the same conditions that men are arrested and convicted.
What they have or don't have within their bodies is not
likely going to effect their sentences. The courts CAN
DO a mumber of things....for example, they might try
offering some conditions for parole or probation that
would create some benefit to any resulting child. They
can suggest Norplant as a method of preventing future
crackbabies from a known crack abuser.
-------------------------------------
>
>No drug addict can claim they did not know they would do harm to =
>themselves or their unborn children.... the inconvenience of the woman
=>drug addict being pregnant with a fetus (which does not have legal =
>protection as a human being), does not alter the fact that the end =
>result is a drug addicted baby, caused by the mothers intent to get =
>'high' on drugs when pregnant.... whether she knew she was pregnant or
=>not is irrelevant, as it is with the drunk driver who kills/injures =
>others, as they also never knew their intent to drive while drunk was
=>going to result in someone else's death and/or injury....=20
>In short not knowing the consequences of their actions is no excuse,
no =reason to deny that they have caused harm to an innocent victim....
>
>This belief of yours is flying like a lead balloon lefty.....
Well, only time will tell how the COURT will interpret
this action. As to drunk driving.....we all know that
drinking and driving is, iteself a reckless disregard
for human life. With FAS or cokehead moms....there still
isn't a human being...and that issue ....that there MAY
never BE a drug induced human being will be a problem
in showing intent.
Lefty
Mark Sobolewski
> >
> Ah, but it doesn't....the bias is still there;
> the only thing that changes is the lack of
> ability to challenge that bias.
You are still free to do so, legally. You just have to... like
all other torts, prove your case.
But you think even THAT is too much. That shouldn't surprise anyone
here: You think someone who writes letters to their congresscritter
is a "freedom fighter." :-) Lefty, you are way too overprotected
for your own reality.
> >If you want to talk about hidden, social bias. I'm afraid that
> >the state can't do anything about that. :-) I keep telling you
> >to not compare apples and oranges. I wish you would listen to me. :-)
>
> Not being able to find equality in the workplace
> violates equal protection. That's hardly a social expectation....
Actually... it is if women, on average, simply _aren't_ working the same
hours at the same jobs with the same experience.
If I quit my job for a "social" decision to become a surfer, then
my salary will be affected. Most people understand that point, Lefty.
They don't think there is some god (or even court) given right for
people to quit their job (or reduce their hours or take time off)
and not have ANY consequences to their actions.
> but ....you are free to think what
> you like until you hear the back doors crack open.
> And THAT'S JUST CA....Other states are laughing at us.
If you have to "sneak through the back door", that only shows how
desperate (and unrealistic) your own position has become.
> >> So....DO something about it. Create safe houses for
> >> crack-using mommies to be that they can voluntarily
> >> enter.....with people there who will prevent them from
> >> using.
> >
> >Ahhh yes! If there is ANY perfect example of Lefty's attitude that
> >the world owes women a living, here it is.
>
> Not at all....It was YOU who said you wanted to help.
> Sheesh! Looks like all you REALLY want to do is to
> blame women and take away their equal rights. Big
> surprise there.
Nope. I did say that society (and their future children) might want
them to alter their behaviour.
You're suggesting that we are responsible for these women's actions.
I say that's laughable. Go ahead, keep using this position. I couldn't
put it better myself...
> >The state already seems willing to provide such a system for them.
> >Heck, the women don't want to go. If they did, the state wouldn't
> >be seeking an injunction against them.
>
> No....the state wants to incarcerate them, and/or
> force them into some form of rehab or institution.
> Or...to criminalize that which they can do with
> their own bodies.
Which is what drug and prostitution laws already do... :-)
And if those things were legal (and untouchable by law) and the
prostitutes and drug abusers were hanging out in front of people's
houses... you can bet that they would be re-criminalized... quickly.
Lefty... if you abuse a right... that's a good way to get it taken
away. (That is... assuming that abortion is some kind of super right.
> If they have voluntary centers
> in safe houses, these women might be very willing
> to go.
They already have rehab centers above. What more do they want Lefty?
Oh, that's right: They want to EXPLOIT their unborn children to
get special, nice housing. :-)
> Also, education is very important.
Everyone in the US has a free education already. These women don't
seem to want it. Another liberal mantra that hasn't worked...
> a thought....if you want a legal way to force women
> into things (this shoul appeal to you Mark), have
> addiction declared a mental illness, and take them
> into protective custody to protect society. :] Of
> course, an ACLU type might want to compare the number
> of male addicts you are incarcerating.
Why should they? Men are already disproportinately sentenced and
arrested (compared to women who are questioned) already and the ACLU
hasn't peeped.
Of course... you do realize that the mental health system has been
abused in other countries (most notably, the Soviet Union.)
I would rather do this straight.
Actually, I would rather do NOTHING. Let the crack moms make feminism
and motherhood into a sham and con-job. Best anti-feminism publicity
I can think of...
> >Lefty, you seem to think that women have ZERO responsibility to
> >gestate healthy children, zip. That unless the state pays for women
> >to do a proper job, they won't.
>
> I did. I took my little vitamins ...gave up coffee
> for 18 grueling months for each child (nursing) and
> gained and lost about 20 lbs with one and 32 with
> the other. I had financial support...my own and
> that of my mate. I also had emotional support from
> friends and my folks. Not all women are as lucky
> as me.
Or maybe it has less to do with "luck" than complete irresponsibility.
If a woman alianates her mate, family, friends and society... is
it any surprise that she has a tough time of things?
Men have known this all along, Lefty. We've been living in the REAL
world. Please come and join us.
> >Tell you what: LET these women breed crack babies. A person who
> >abuses their freedom, doesn't have it for very long. I consider
> >them a representative of your movement.
>
> Well, there ARE things we can do....but lets
> do it wisely and not by trying to make women
> second class citizens, which is JUST what you
> seem bent on doing.
I hardly think that requiring _anyone_ to use their rights in a responsible
manner is making them a second class citizen.
You are free to believe that the world owes you a living, but I reserve
the right to disagree.
> >If YOU don't want your movement to get a bad name, YOU put up the
> >money. I'm not cleaning up your messes.
>
> It's not up to feminists....to clean up crack moms.
No problem. The Patriarchy will be happy to do it for you. :-)
PLEASE LEFTY! Don't do anything about it!
I'm BEGGING YOU! :-)
> Where on earth did you ever get the idea that
> feminism is responsible for the woes of the world?
I didn't say that. I did say that they were responsible for the legal
climate that allows this condition to exist. If you disagree with me,
stop defending them...
> Seeking and maintaining equal rights takes up all
> of our time there. Now, folks who ARE feminist,
> may also want to help educate crack moms.
Go right ahead. But I don't think these women are really all that
interested in hearing how crack damages their fetus. On the contrary,
I think your attitude that fetuses are nothing but objects to
exploit for their gain in welfare and potential child-support
has only CREATED the situation.
> >> >Welcome to the "brave new world" of crack babies, mauranding
> teenage>> children>of welfare moms, and other "benefits" that society
> is pinning> right>on the shoulders of the feminist movement.
> >>
> >> Better yet....learn the difference between valid law
> >> and UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> >
> >*yawn* We're not discussing the law... we're discussing the world
> >your supreme court created absolute right is offering us.
>
> Well, that means you have to follow legal channels
> to correct problems....not on the backs of only one
> gender, but so that the problem is addressed without
> the need to take away fundamental rights.
Aren't you the one who just said that you are going to seek a "back door"
solution to 209 which we _all_ know is going to be on the backs of
the white males?
You LOVE to exploit white males Lefty... because you have dehumanized them.
Now you accuse me of the same thing only vice versa.
I argue that I haven't dehumanized women. I have criticized INDIVIDUAL
women's actions, and asked that those INDIVIDUAL women be held accountable
for their actions.
That's different than asking men, as a group, to suffer reverse discrimination
or a lack of legal choices to pay for your utopian schemes.
Point one finger at me but point three back at yourself.
> >Or maybe she might just get pregnant in order to push her jailers
> >into making a deal. This system can create even MORE crack babies.
> >Isn't logic a complex thing?
>
> Well, she can bonk a prison guard with or without
> a deal pending AND with or without your permission.
> What is complex, Mark, is life, love and law....and
> possibly a few other things.
Agreed.
This isn't a simple "constitutional" issue. You are the one who
sought to simplify it, remember?
Now that you have lost... you change your position... yet again.
round and round she goes...
> >>..Ones that don't offend the Constitution.
> >
> >I don't see the right to gestate crack babies ANYWHERE in the
> constitution.
>
> That's only because you don't know where to look.
> :] (or choose not to look)
If the document is so sufficently vague that... a court can derive
just about ANY right from it... than it's a worthless document.
You might as well have a magic 8 ball up on the court and have
them shake it and then write their opinions. :-)
Which would seem to be your position: Having lost the debate intellectually,
and now even publically, you are reduced to having to rely upon
friendly bureaucrats to surreptiously twist the law in your favor.
This isn't much different than a racist cop stopping blacks in a white
neighborhood and giving them speeding tickets. They have the authority
to do so, and nobody can prove what they are doing is wrong, but it's
pretty wrong and pathetic nonetheless.
Lefty... I'm not afraid of democracy and the written law. Why are you?
> What makes you think that Ginsberg and Souter would
> let Thomas run amok....even though Souter is not
> liberal....he's quite astute....and then there's
> O'conner....who never fails to surprise. No...I'm
> not worried, especially since poor old Thomas must
> have peed his pants when he had to recuse himself
> from the Citadel case.
Lefty... you really are quite shallow aren't you?
I haven't heard this kind of talk since class president elections
in the 5th grade. Right down to the peeing thing...
> >Which would make sense considering that the people are beginning
> >to feel the same way. I would like to KISS those crack moms:
> >they have done very much to show what feminism _IS_.
>
> What is it you think they're proving...that lack
> of education, and poverty provides a good way to
> raise kids?
Millions of people who are poor raise their kids with some problems,
but they do a good job nonetheless.
Nobody FORCED her to do crack, Lefty. In fact, I could argue that
her poverty should have made crack more expensive. Heck... _I_
can't afford crack even if I wanted it.
> I would be willing to bet you that
> most crack moms would have difficulty spelling feminism.
Nope. But you don't. And you are the one defending them. Please,
keep doing so. Don't stop.
> >And men aren't held responsible for their actions prior to birth
> >but after conception? Care for me to quote from you?
>
> Actions that are causative to co-creation can be
> easily proven with a simple blood test. A baby
> that doesn't exist has no complaint.
Great! At the moment of co-creation, do a simple blood test
on the BABY and we'll see if one exists. :-)
Next.
> >Tell you what: I think the state should put the child in someone
> else's>care and then have her pay child-support for the next 40 years
> or so.
>
> I'm perfectly ok with that solution...but let's not
> forget daddy....he can also pay support; after all
> it was also HIS choice to put his seed into crackmom.
No problem. The father is usually dead at this point in time or
already in deep trouble. I fail to see how his situation can get
much worse. :-)
> >There... that's CIVIL law. Trust me... after living like a slave
> >for 40 years... she'll WISH she had been thrown in jail! :-)
>
> As I said Mark. I don't have any problem with that
> as long as it doesn't interfere with any possibility
> of adoption....which is in the child's best interests.
Orphanages allow for adoption. Not only that, but you claim that
a poverty stricken home is no place to raise a child. No problemo.
The state supposedly can provide good daycare, right? They should
also provide adequate orphanages. (All paid for by the mom
over the next 40 years and daddy, (if they can find him. :-)
Good luck. (In Philadelphia, it's not uncommon for a single man to
father a DOZEN kids then die from a gang war. I know because I
used to live there and SAW it all the time.)
> >That's why I want those who gestate children... held responsible for
> >their actions.
> >
> Me too. Along with play-a-long poppa.
Well, when he gestates, I'll hold him responsible too.
:-)
Talk to mother nature, that's what you tell us right?
Mark
Karen Hayward
On 22 Mar 1998 15:52:11 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
>In <6f1qlc$ij6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> do...@letterbox.com writes:
>>
>>
>>I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a
>person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
>agree with this.
>
> I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
> to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
Actually, you are incorrect there...here in Nevada, in certain
counties, it is quite legal to work in a brothel and prostitute one's
body. In fact there is one, the Mustang Ranch, about 13 miles from
where I live. Nevada has around 47 licensed brothels, where one may
prostitute one's body if one so chooses. :-) They are licensed, I
believe, by the Prostitution Commision (a state commision) and must, I
believe, undergo monthly checks, just like the casinos have to.
There are even a couple of brothels that have male prostitutes that
women can visit. :-)
Karen
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <199803221247...@ladder03.news.aol.com> pa...@aol.com
(PangK) writes:
>
>>From: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
>>Newsgroups: soc.men
>
>SUBJECT IS: What has become known as Patrial birth abortion.
>
>> I advocate taking care of CHILDREN, Pangfucker. Until
>> there is one.....there isn't one.
>
> SHould I call you Hemingcunt?
You can call me what you like.
I do SO enjoy your defense of this BARBARIC practice. Having someone
ram a hollow steel spike into>the skull of a 9th month "fetus" and
>sucking the brain out because MOMMY wants it!
>
> Yes, Carol ANn, you gals display SUCH "moral superiority" to
>us men. Your COMPASSION for CHILDREN and your regard for human life
and your>HUMANITY is noted. I do SO enjoy>your ACT of moral
superiority.
>
> >If you started regulating
>> your ejaculate the same way you want to monitor women's
>> by products....you might be on the road to getting
>> somewhere.
>
> 99% of the women seeking PARTIAL BIRTH abortiuons were MARRIED women
>Carol Ann..... Often this>proceedure was done AGAINST the father's
desires.
So what Pangblister; it's not HIS BODY.
------------------
ANd>NOT for any VALID medical reason! But the CONVINIENCE
>of the MOTHER!
Do you have some proof of all this ...
....nah your interpretation sucks...just like all
those machines that can be used to suck fetal material
that isn't wanted....or liposuction fat.
===========
>
> It's a real BITCH Carol when you go to Vegas and put that
dollar in the>slot. When you don't win. YOU would toss a shit fit and
demand it back!
No need. The risk IS what it IS. When there
are options, that risk is what that is.'
-----------------
Whenyou make a baby you don't always get a perfect one. MURDER is NOT
okay!
Good, then it's real good we don't consider late
term abortions murder then, isn't it. Until there
IS a child, there is NOT ONE. And poppa doens't
have a damned thing to say about it. Tell the
controlling bastard to gestate his own choices.
-----------------------------
It is>NOT a right! ANd
>that form of MURDER, Ms. Hemingway is WAY, WAY beyond
>the beatsiality of even Hitler's GOONS!
Yadda Yadda....back to Hitler argument #34.
-------------
Even the WORST
>of Hitler's mopnsters would have said that THAT was "TOO BARBARIC"
even for>them! But YOU rejoice in it! Sort of>tells me where you sit on
the humanity scale.
It does indeed. I'm not on the side where little
boys want to make choices for grown women.
Lefty
>
>
>
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f2qlt$m5n$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> "Max Burke"><6f1phe$s...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...>>writes:=20
>
>>>Shouldn't be too hard--who was responsible for introducing the
alcohol
>
>
>> It isn't quite that simple. Drug addicted men ALSO
>> contribute DNA .....are we prepared to trace back that
>> within the child to make sure the proud poppa WASN'T
>> drug addicted at conception? I didn't think so.
>> ------------------------------
>
>into drug addict's lefty, it's the mothers who continue to take the =
>drugs while pregnant.... In this case the only one responsible is the
addiction =>of the baby....
-----------
Ah....so you want to treat ONLY the addiction be-
cause you claim that ONLY mother is responsible.
Why shouldn't we trace back each and every baby
born with congenital problems to make sure that
DADDY never took drugs? Perhaps we should, while
we're looking, compare babies to see if dad should
have taken vitamins to prevent birth defects.
------------------
>
>Reading your post's that fact is what's really getting up your nose =
>isn't it, the fact that men cant be held responsible for drug addicted
>babies....=20
--------
No what get's "up my nose" is men who are willing to
pull the splinter out of a woman's eye when there's
a mote in their own. :]
--------------
>
>> ---------
>> No....I don't think that's their position at all. I=20
>> have no problem with putting more women in jail...as
>> long as it's done CONSTITUTIONALLY.
>> ------------=20
>
>What's unconstitutional about jailing drug addicted pregnant women,
who = are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for the possession and
use of =>illegal drugs lefty....
Nothing at all....as long as the sentences are
based upon the same sentences men have and NOT
upon gestation.
-----------------
The laws against drug use are duly constituted =
>laws under the constitution of the USA aren't they.....
---------
Most are....I don't have one single problem with that.
>
>>>
>>> No. I'm trying to be consistent on criminal law. =20
>>> Specific intent must apply. If a person has NO
>>> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
>>> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
>>> he/she may not be charged with such. =20
>>> --------------------
>
>The fact they take drugs knowing full well that the are harmful (to
the =>point of causing death), to themselves, and any unborn child is
proof of =>intent to cause harm.... (You cant tell me women drug
addicts dont know =>the dangers of taking drugs, to themselves, and
their unborn child, they =>dont even have the dubious excuse of
ignorance in this case...)
>Just as a drunk driver knows they can and do cause death and injury, =
>because of their intent to drive while drunk, so the drug addicted =
>mother knows she is guilty of causing injury to her unborn child....
>I would just love to see a defence lawyer try to claim his drug
addicted =>client did NOT know the danger they were putting themselves
and their =>unborn child in, when they took the drugs....
>
-----------
So....if a woman doesn't KNOW she's pregnant, and she
IS pregnant, does that mean that women can no longer
legally drink so as to prevent what you call her "intent"?
So, what you REALLY want here, is for men to be able
to drink, but not women. Why don't you move to Irac;
that's the policy there. :]
Lefty
Karen Hayward
>
> I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
> to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
More on the legal rights of a woman to prostitute her own body in
Nevada ,can be found at http://www.parania.com/~bashful/faq-page.html.
It's a FAQ sheet on some of the aspects of prostituation in Nevada,
written by a frequent user of the facilities.
The US Government actually once tried to get into the brothel
business, when the IRS seized the Mustang Ranch due to non-payment of
taxes. There were a few obsatcles, like the Storey County Commissioner
telling bankruptcy court trustee, Jeri Coppa Knudson, that it would
take three months to see if she qualified for a brothel license.
The government decided to give up on the idea not long after TV host,
Arsenio Hall called President Bush a pimp on national TV :-)
Karen
Karen Hayward
On 22 Mar 1998 01:18:56 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
>In <3513f614...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen
>Hayward) writes:
>>
>>On 21 Mar 1998 05:44:49 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>>Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>>> Sure I do. Women should be held JUST AS accountable
>>> as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
>>> crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
>>> will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
>>> Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
>>>
>>> Lefty
>>>
>>
>>What the heck are 'male perpetrated crimes' and 'female perpetrated
>>crimes'?????????
>>
>> For example...if a male and a female go out shoplifting and are
>>caught...the nature of the crime does not change just because one of
>>the particapants was a female and the other a male.
>>
>>Karen
>
> ---------
> How many men do you know who are arrested for what
> they put into their bodies? I'm not talking about
I know of quite a few. Admittadly, most are arrested for offences such
as DUI.....but lets look at this for a moment.
If a male drives while under the influence of an drug (illegal or
otherwise) or alcohol and hits and kills someone...he can be charged
with vehicular manslaughter or whatever it's called in your particular
state. Most people who drive while under the influence, don't have the
intent to kill someone...but if they do, then they pay the price.
If that same male was to hit a car that was carrying a pregnant woman,
and she lost the baby as a result of his DUI..then in some States he
would be charged with that baby's death...usually only if the baby was
considered viable. He had no intent to go out and hit a car and kill
the baby....but tough, again he pays the price.
> drug possession....or drug sales... I'm talking
> about simply being addicted to drugs. When we start
Somebody who is arrested for drug possession, is usually also addicted
to drugs...someone who is selling drugs, is also often addicted to
drugs...it's how they support their own habit.
> arresting male addicts just for being addicted and
> make them stay in jail for nine months, perhaps
> we'll have something to discuss. Or, howzabout
> arresting men for taking drugs while their fucking
> their brains out; maybe THEY are contributing to
> the co-creation of a drug addicted baby, or a baby
> harmed by the man's drug use.
>
It could very possibly be so.....marijuanna for instance, has been
found in the fatty deposits surrounding the testicles...it's not know
what effect this has on the sperm (well at least it wasn't known when
I read the article a number of years ago). Also, with the trend
towards people having babies later in life, they're also beginning to
research into the part that *older sperm* plays in conditions, such as
Down's Syndrome.
Putting all that aside though...that is not what we are talking about
here. What we are talking about is whether or not a woman, once she
finds out she is pregnant and decides to continue with the pregnancy,
has a responsibility to not knowingly ingest something, that she
knowingly may cause harm to her unborn baby.
If the women reads a newspaper or magazine, listens to TV or the
radio...then the chances are that she will know that certain
substances , may harm her unborn baby.
'I'm sorry little Bert, that you suffer from FAS, I knew that drinking
alcohol would probably cause harm to you, but I didn't mean it too'
'I'm sorry Judge, that the little girl died in that car crash, I knew
that drinking would impair my driving, but I didn't mean it too'
Heck, if we're going to allow that excuse in the first case, we may as
well allow it in the second case.....I mean, neither meant to cause
harm when they decided to drink....the fact that someone was damaged
or died...well that's just life....it was all that life's fault that
they happenned to be in the wrong place or the wrong uterus at the
wrong time.
Responsibility??? Nahhhh...the supremes haven't said that that's legal
yet...:-)
Karen
tre...@jhb.lia.net
In article <6f0v5o$l...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
> In <6f0dff$g7u$1...@gte2.gte.net> Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
> writes:
>
> (edit)
> >
> >Lefty's problem here is that only women will ever get charged with
> >harming their unborn children because only women gestate (men don't),
> so>obviously that's an unfair situation for Lefty. It unfairly
> >discriminates against women. Lefty cares not a whit what happens to
> the>fetus. But the woman did not abort, obviously intended to have the
> >child, and chose to take crack. If the baby is harmed, in my view it's
> a>crime. Letting her off because she's an irresponsible drug addict is
> >absurd.
> >
> >Paul R
>
> --------
> You are funny. A woman who is gestating, may cease
> that gestation at any time until the third trimester,
> and after the third trimester, if she has just about
> ANY medical reason. That essentially means that
> harm to a child cannot be shown until there IS A CHILD.
> Until you are able to discern the difference between
> a human being and "potential"....please don't waste
> your potential by ejaculating into a centerfold.
>
your desire to control men's sexuality?
Back to the theme. Would you please, Madame pseudocounsellor, explain to us a
proper set of charges for the following hypothetical situation (not really
hypothetical in too many instances, unfortunately):
Crack daddy, in fit of drug-induced psychosis (or patriarchal rapture, if that
helps your reading pleasure), beats up crack mama. Crack mama aborts as a
result of the beating.
Two questions, in fact: What should appear on the charge sheet? What WOULD
appear on the charge sheet in several jurisdictions?
T. R. Ellis
do...@letterbox.com
<snip>
> >Lefty, have you ever seen a baby going through drug/alcohol withdrawl?
>
> Yes, and on more than one occasion.
>
> It is>probably the most unpleasent sight I have ever witnessed.
> Following your argument, there is no such thing as manslaughter
> (causing death without>intent). What if the mother gave the baby drugs
> after the birth, the effect>will be the same, so why is it child abuse
> after birth but not before.
>
> Because the mother would have to have INTENT to harm
> a child. If the child doesn't exist and may not ever
> exist (sometimes drugs even kill the fetus) there can
> be (at the most...and even that would be hard to prove)
> INTENT to get rid of the fetus.
> -----------------------------
Still obsessed with intent, Lefty? Some crimes DO NOT need specific intent
proved. Manslaughter, death by dangerous driving, death by drink driving etc.
> (this>all ignores the fact that possesion of cocaine is illegal, as
> is the use of>it).
>
> Indeed....AND that is where the action really is.
> >
> >I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a
> person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
> agree with this.
>
> I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
> to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
> specific and very clear that in matters of reproductive
> procedures ALL PEOPLE have the right to decide and
> determine which, if any, will apply. The right is not
> as general as you might think.
> ------------------------------
In the UK, (I don't know about in america), the act of being paid for sexual
intercourse is not in itself illegal. It is just very difficult to accomplish
withour breaching other laws, eg soliciting and brothel running.
>
> >If a person wants to use drugs or smoke or whatever that is their
> right, AS>LONG AS they don't harm anyone else doing so. And doing
> drugs while pregnant>DOES lead to the harm of somebody else.
> >
> >"But that's just my opinion"
> >
> >Dolph
>
> --------
> And, most anti-choice folk would agree with you
> because they see the fetus as deserving of greater
> rights than a human woman. It's not all that
> surprising. The fact remains that unless there IS
> A PERSON a mother would not be able to INTEND harm
> to one. We plain don't know her state of mind.
> For example, I'll pretend to be a crack head mom
> at a party. "Hey man ....give me some o that...
> I'm going in to get rid of this thing....tomorrow"
> Intent ....that is the big problem. Of course the
> real issue is still what it always HAS BEEN....not
> the helping of mothers and children, but the CONTROL
> OF WOMEN.
>
> Lefty
>
>
For a start, I'm Pro-choice and have never seen a sensible argument to be
otherwise.
Now, I do not believe that a fetus has more rights than the mother. The
child, if it is born has the same rights. One of these rights is the right
not to be forced to take drugs. This is not simply about controlling women,
Men are not allowed to take drugs either.
If a man was responisble for forcing a women to take drugs while pregnant,
then the man would be responsible for the abuse caused by the child being
addicted.
Can you provide a response to this without resorting to the intent argument
(which is inherently flawed due to the fact that all crimes DO NOT require
specific intent)?
Can you state that if it was a man in this case and not a woman you would feel
the same?
Can you except the possiblity that you may be wrong?
If you can prove there is no harm to the baby (after it's birth) by having
drugs giving to it by the placenta, I will back down. However, studies have
been done which prove otherwise.
"But that's just my opinion"
Dolph
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Carol Ann Hemingway:
>In <6f2qlt$m5n$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> "Max Burke"
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes:
>>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
>>>>or other drug into>her system?
>>
>>> It isn't quite that simple. Drug addicted men ALSO
>>> contribute DNA .....are we prepared to trace back that
>>> within the child to make sure the proud poppa WASN'T
>>> drug addicted at conception? I didn't think so.
Well, THIS is an interesting statement.
Lefty, do you think that the damage done by maternal drug addiction is
primarily to the DNA? If so, what proof of this can you cite? If not, then
on what factual, scientific basis do you intend to hold the father
responsible for damage to which he did not contribute?
>>Its not the drug addicted men fathering these children who turn them
>>into drug addict's lefty, it's the mothers who continue to take the
>>drugs while pregnant.... In this case the only one responsible is the
>>mother, no blame can be attributed to the father for the drug
>>addiction of the baby....
>
> Ah....so you want to treat ONLY the addiction be-
> cause you claim that ONLY mother is responsible.
Can you prove that the father is responsible?
Do you think addictions are passed down through the DNA?
Why do I have the nasty suspicion that you will never, ever present any
proof of these assertions?
> Why shouldn't we trace back each and every baby
> born with congenital problems to make sure that
> DADDY never took drugs?
Because there's no good proof of a correlation between the two. It's called
science, Loser. Look into it.
>Perhaps we should, while
> we're looking, compare babies to see if dad should
> have taken vitamins to prevent birth defects.
<chuckle> Sure, Lefty. Start a foundation. Do some research. (Why do I
get this image of a blowzy old fishwife squinting myopically into a
microscope and shouting, "I saw a thingy move! It's proof! Proof!")
Better get cracking. You should pardon the expression.
<snip remainder>
You know, between this thread, the porn argument, and the goddess argument,
you're killing your credibility among all but the weakest-minded readers.
You've already converted one pro-choicer to a pro-lifer. Are you so
determined to have your worthless say that you'll sink every -ism to which
you glutinously adhere?
JCR
--
"Could you leave it ALL behind?
Would you be LOST without it?"
-- "Good to be Gone" by Soul Hat
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f32ht$cq7$1...@gte2.gte.net> Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> In <6f0dff$g7u$1...@gte2.gte.net> Paul Robbins
<prob...@dbintellect.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> (edit)
>> >
>> >Lefty's problem here is that only women will ever get charged with
>> >harming their unborn children because only women gestate (men
don't),> so>obviously that's an unfair situation for Lefty. It unfairly
>> >discriminates against women. Lefty cares not a whit what happens to
>> the>fetus. But the woman did not abort, obviously intended to have
the >child, and chose to take crack. If the baby is harmed, in my view
it's> a>crime. Letting her off because she's an irresponsible drug
addict is>> >absurd.
>> >
>> >Paul R
----------
Criminal intent takes place AT THE TIME OF THE
CRIMINAL ACTION....in that regard, any women who
didn't know she was prego could not have intent
to harm a fetus, and any woman who SAYS she was
going to abort anyway couldn't have intent. It
would be a difficult task indeed showing that
her state of mind was to harm a fetus she didn't
also intend to gestate.
------------------------
>>
>> --------
>> You are funny. A woman who is gestating, may cease
>> that gestation at any time until the third trimester,
>> and after the third trimester, if she has just about
>> ANY medical reason. That essentially means that
>> harm to a child cannot be shown until there IS A CHILD.
>> Until you are able to discern the difference between
>> a human being and "potential"....please don't waste
>> your potential by ejaculating into a centerfold.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>
>And don't waste your time posting your feminist and self-indulgent
views>that babies need no protection from crack-ingesting mothers. What
I find>abhorrent here is your incredible indifference to the suffering
of these>children which masquerades as some type of concern for women's
rights.
There is no need to label me as "indifferent" because
I am insisting that the law provide equal treatment
for both genders.
-------------------
>
>The hell with the kids, as long as women have rights. Let them
>suffer--but don't take away women's rights. Postings such as these are
>why feminism is now on the decline--you've shown us its ugly face, its
>indifference to the suffering of children.
>
>Paul R
----------
Yadda Yadda; every time any woman stands up for
equal treatment, she is just a horrid old witch...
...isn't she? Just wait until I find little
Hansel and little Gretle......
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f2otf$kd9$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> "Max Burke"
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes:
>
>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message =
><6f1onj$s...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> ---------
>> There IS NO MORAL DEFENSE. But, there is a legal one,
>> that's based in solid constitutional law. If you give
>> a man an inch in deciding what goes on in a woman's body
>> he'll take a mile. Women have no intention of giving
>> up bodily autonomy so men can make choices for us about
>> take....just like they regulate what drugs MEN take, but
>> they cannot decide whether the life we carry within is
>> going to come to fruition. Because of that, there is no
>> way to judge WHEN harm will happen. If there IS no baby,
>
>That'd be right, lefty's feminism doesn't have any moral code at all,
>very difficult to justify things like AA, abortion, and apparently
Ah, but I've already TAKEN a moral stand, one that
says your rights are no more important than mine;
in that respect, I'm protecting all those female
crack babies from men like you who'd like nothing
more than to tell THEM what to do with their bodies.
----------------------------
>But morality must always be applied where men appear to have an =
>advantage, i.e pornography, SAH women, the mythical patriarchy.....
---------
You may apply your morality, I mine. What you
can't do, however, is to change the law so that
I must follow your moral code.
-------------------
>The end result of a pregnancy is a baby lefty, no mater how
inconvenient.
Not really, my sister had two pregnancies and only
one resulted in a baby.
---------------
>that is for your beliefs.....
>Your paranoia about how men are out to take all your rights a really =
>beginning to show on this one....
--------
:] There's no need for paranoia; history precedes
the possibility.
human
On 22 Mar 1998 11:59:00 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
:>Actually... it is if women, on average, simply _aren't_ working the same
:>hours at the same jobs with the same experience.
:>
:>If I quit my job for a "social" decision to become a surfer, then
:>my salary will be affected. Most people understand that point, Lefty.
:>They don't think there is some god (or even court) given right for
:>people to quit their job (or reduce their hours or take time off)
:>and not have ANY consequences to their actions.
Yeah. Statistics Canada published their annual "women make
X dollars for every dollar men make" report and feminists were
out in force in the media making hay on it. Then some brave
soul in Statistics Canada came forward and said "there is no
evidence that the difference in total incomes is the result of
sexual discrimination; it is demonstrable that this difference is
solely the result of life decisions made by women and men".
The response from the founder of NAC (Canada's version of
NOW), Judy Rebick, was: why should women have to do the
same things as men just to get the same rewards? Tells you
everything you need to know about organized feminism.
--
Alternate views of feminism:
"Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women" by Christina Hoff Sommers
"Moral Panic - Biopolitics Rising" by John Fekete
"The New Victorians" by Rene Denfeld
"The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell
"Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The Strange World of Women's Studies" by D. Patai & N. Koertge
and related web sites:
http://www.hugin.imat.com/~sheaffer
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/index.html
http://www.kfs.org/~kashka/ammd.html
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Mark Sobolewski
> >about frozen sperm viability and chromosome damage.
>
> too long ago, and more will be forthcoming.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that eggs
could not be frozen.
Nonetheless, the perception among single women is that they get nervous at
the age of 30. That's certainly been my experience. Most men aren't
interested in freezing their sperm. They don't trust the technology.
I certainly don't.
Perhaps it's a good moment to pause and consider how important these
choices really _aren't_ to a majority of people: Most people
aren't interested in exercising abortion rights. Most certainly
don't want crack babies as a consequence of these so called rights.
Most don't want to freeze their sperm or eggs.
I'm as much a technocrat as anyone, Marg. But I'm also realistic
enough to acknowledge that these toys... aren't all that important
in life. Most people don't trust that technology and to have
someone else hold their eggs and sperm. That's just the way
people seem to be.
> >You are free to disagree Lefty. Like I keep telling you: If women
> >such as this can't _handle_ equality, that's not MY problem.
>
> They CAN and DO.
Then stop defending alimony and asking for free daycare. Men certainly
don't need these things.
Asking for equality while getting paid by daddy to look after their
own home doesn't convince me that they are serious. Sorry.
If you want equality, little teenager, you have to pay for the gas
before you get the car keys. :-)
> >It's YOUR movement's problem. Let's continue:
>
> What problem?
That even after 30 years of practically having equality HANDED to you,
that society is still as sexist as ever. That... many people are
beginning to think so little of feminism... that most women
have abandoned the label.
That's not my problem at all. In fact, it's a rather wonderful
period to live in.
Feminism is intellectually and politically bankrupt. Go ahead,
keep sneaking in through the back door. Isn't that where you belong? :-)
(It's also the servants entrance.)
> >Ever hear of the vote, Lefty?
>
> Yes...ever hear of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS....?
Yes. 209 says I have them. I know how much it angers you that
white males will actually get treated like human beings.
Learn to live with it. More of the same is coming down the road...
> >If so-called "rights" and "entitlements" can be voted and created
> >through a series of judicial appointments and legislation...
> >
> >THEY CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY.
>
> Who's going to DO THAT?
The same people who happily leave the workplace to have daddy look
after them.
> >Quite frankly, I rather LIKE the idea of a woman's absolute right
> >to gestate crack babies. Please feel free to wear it around your
> >movement's neck... like an albatross.
> >
> The right to gestate or not gestate, will not
> depend on the quality of the fetus, only the will
> of the one carrying it and it's life.
This jives with your position that women are goddesses who determine
whether a fetus deserves life or not and then thrusts it upon men
and society.
Which is fine... with me. As more crack babies are thrust upon us
(and the taxpayers), even women will come to see that position
as selfish and irresponsible.
There are women right now arguing against you. Even those who, under
ordinary circumstances... aren't exactly on my wavelength.
Thank you so much.
Keep it up.
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
> :>hours at the same jobs with the same experience.
> :>
> :>If I quit my job for a "social" decision to become a surfer, then
> :>my salary will be affected. Most people understand that point, Lefty.
> :>They don't think there is some god (or even court) given right for
> :>people to quit their job (or reduce their hours or take time off)
> :>and not have ANY consequences to their actions.
>
> X dollars for every dollar men make" report and feminists were
> out in force in the media making hay on it. Then some brave
> soul in Statistics Canada came forward and said "there is no
> evidence that the difference in total incomes is the result of
> sexual discrimination; it is demonstrable that this difference is
> solely the result of life decisions made by women and men".
> The response from the founder of NAC (Canada's version of
> NOW), Judy Rebick, was: why should women have to do the
> same things as men just to get the same rewards? Tells you
> everything you need to know about organized feminism.
I think many people in the working world (outside academia) also see
this. When a woman quits her job to stay at home... it's often
the women office workers that must pick up the slack.
Despite Marg and Lefty's posturing... there is a war between career
moms and part-time/SAH moms in the workplace. Until recently,
it was men that took all the blame for women's problems. I can
hardly wait to watch them fight it out with each other.
I would even pay per view. :-)
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
king...@intercomm.com (Karen Hayward) wrote:
> On 22 Mar 1998 15:52:11 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
> Hemingway) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a
> >person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
> >agree with this.
> >
> > I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
> > to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
>
> counties,
But that doesn't make it a right anymore than gambling is a right. :-) :-)
You have named a single place that allows this conduct... that makes
it far from a right.
> it is quite legal to work in a brothel and prostitute one's
> body. In fact there is one, the Mustang Ranch, about 13 miles from
> where I live. Nevada has around 47 licensed brothels, where one may
> prostitute one's body if one so chooses. :-) They are licensed, I
> believe, by the Prostitution Commision (a state commision) and must, I
> believe, undergo monthly checks, just like the casinos have to.
And those licenses can be revoked at any time for a number of reasons
(just like the "privilege" of a driver's license)
The state has absolute authority over our body. I didn't say I like it,
but the logic is the underpinnings of anti-euthanism, drug laws,
prostitution, and even selt belts.
Sure, it's possible to have a supreme court judge look the other way
and declare something a "right." But it's also possible for a
policeman to decide to ticket blacks traveling in white areas.
After all, they have some discretion, right? :-)
By seeking to circumvent the written law _and_ the will of the people,
Lefty and buds make the law irrelevant. Provided you have your
cronies in power, you get your way.
How is that any different than the worst of the patriarchs?
mark
Marg Petersen
In article <marks-22039...@ip-55-027.sna.primenet.com>,
Mark Sobolewski <ma...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>> ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>> >Not doable at this period in time. There are even questions
>> >about frozen sperm viability and chromosome damage.
>>
>> There was just a sucessful one....born not
>> too long ago, and more will be forthcoming.
>
>Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that eggs
>could not be frozen.
Nope, eggs can be frozen and "re-animated." Been done.
>Nonetheless, the perception among single women is that they get nervous at
>the age of 30. That's certainly been my experience. Most men aren't
>interested in freezing their sperm. They don't trust the technology.
>I certainly don't.
And there are currently enough sperm frozen in sperm banks to
take care of any who desire to be impregnated by same for
milennia, without ANY more men contributing. They seem to keep
doing so though. :-)
And yes, I would say that some women "get nervous" around the age
of 30 if they don't already have children. Why? Because they are
aware of the risks to their own body and they are aware that as
they age, those risks increase as well as risks the fetus will
be genetically damaged. Also, women ARE aware (even if men
aren't) the amount of physical resources and stamina that it
takes to raise a child(ren). They are also aware that as they
age that stamina will more than likely be less, for most. All
of this is interesting, but I don't see that it is particularly
YOUR problem. Women will *handle* the problem in whatever way
they see fit to do.
>Perhaps it's a good moment to pause and consider how important these
>choices really _aren't_ to a majority of people: Most people
>aren't interested in exercising abortion rights. Most certainly
>don't want crack babies as a consequence of these so called rights.
>Most don't want to freeze their sperm or eggs.
So? How does that negate that some do? I have never had an
abortion. Although I am most certainly of the mindset that it
is a damm good thing it IS available to those who need/want one.
>I'm as much a technocrat as anyone, Marg. But I'm also realistic
>enough to acknowledge that these toys... aren't all that important
>in life. Most people don't trust that technology and to have
>someone else hold their eggs and sperm. That's just the way
>people seem to be.
Please pay attention to the headers. Most of the previous post
didn't have *anything* in it that I had written. I believe your
comments were directed at Lefty, but we all know how confusing
it is to keep us women apart. :-)
>> >You are free to disagree Lefty. Like I keep telling you: If women
>> >such as this can't _handle_ equality, that's not MY problem.
>>
>> They CAN and DO.
>
>Then stop defending alimony and asking for free daycare. Men certainly
>don't need these things.
Of course they didn't need to ASK FOR them, they already had them.
>Asking for equality while getting paid by daddy to look after their
>own home doesn't convince me that they are serious. Sorry.
>
>If you want equality, little teenager, you have to pay for the gas
>before you get the car keys. :-)
I am perfectly willing to keep men out of my life should they desire
that. They seem to not though. Perhaps you are different?
>> >It's YOUR movement's problem. Let's continue:
>>
>> What problem?
>
>That even after 30 years of practically having equality HANDED to you,
>that society is still as sexist as ever. That... many people are
>beginning to think so little of feminism... that most women
>have abandoned the label.
Label shmabel. The proof is in the USE OF feminism, not the label.
Try taking women's vote away from them. Go ahead, I dare you.
>That's not my problem at all. In fact, it's a rather wonderful
>period to live in.
I think so. I certaily have more freedoms than my grandmother
had AND more opportunities to pursue the life that *I* want.
>Feminism is intellectually and politically bankrupt. Go ahead,
>keep sneaking in through the back door. Isn't that where you belong? :-)
>(It's also the servants entrance.)
Backdoor, frontdoor, I don't care HOW I get in as long as I get IN.
I would prefer to use the front door, thank you very much, but if I
have to use the backdoor because of sexists and bigots, then I will.
The truth is, women won't be kept out and if enough women are IN,
they will open the front door to ALL.
>> >Ever hear of the vote, Lefty?
>>
>> Yes...ever hear of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS....?
>
>Yes. 209 says I have them. I know how much it angers you that
>white males will actually get treated like human beings.
>
>Learn to live with it. More of the same is coming down the road...
White males have *always* been considered human beings. WOmen
and minorities only recently. I'm happy to see that even if
those like YOU prefer otherwise.
>> >If so-called "rights" and "entitlements" can be voted and created
>> >through a series of judicial appointments and legislation...
>> >
>> >THEY CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY.
>>
>> Who's going to DO THAT?
>
>The same people who happily leave the workplace to have daddy look
>after them.
You think those same people will willingly give up their right
to vote, to speak out, to do what THEY desire? Bwahahahahaha.
You really are delusional.
>> >Quite frankly, I rather LIKE the idea of a woman's absolute right
>> >to gestate crack babies. Please feel free to wear it around your
>> >movement's neck... like an albatross.
>> >
>> The right to gestate or not gestate, will not
>> depend on the quality of the fetus, only the will
>> of the one carrying it and it's life.
>
>This jives with your position that women are goddesses who determine
>whether a fetus deserves life or not and then thrusts it upon men
>and society.
Well, it's true. :-) By the way, have you considered creating
a law that forbids conception, gestation and giving birth? There
might be a few who would go along with you. Give it a try why
don't you?
>Which is fine... with me. As more crack babies are thrust upon us
>(and the taxpayers), even women will come to see that position
>as selfish and irresponsible.
>There are women right now arguing against you. Even those who, under
>ordinary circumstances... aren't exactly on my wavelength.
>Thank you so much.
>Keep it up.
You're entirely welcome.
>Mark
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <kirgszouks...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca> "human"
> <per...@aplanet.com> writes:
> >
>
> (edit)
>
> >Exactly the same thing happened in Canada last year except it was
> alcohol>not coke and the mother had already given birth to three fetal
> alcoholsyndrome babies. Feminists made the same claims as above.
> Eventually>the supreme court let her go saying that "there are some
> evils that are>the responsibility of parliament to correct not the
> supreme court". FAS>affects many thousands of children here every year
> and one md who>researched the matter says about half the inmates in
> prison here were>born with FAS. But feminists seem quite willing to
> sacrifice these children's>lives.
>
> ----------
> Not at all. Feminists just want the same laws that
> apply to men, applied to WOMEN. In that regard, it
> is necessary to have specific intent to harm applied
> to this type of criminal activity....in the same
> way that it applies to murder, battery, etc.
>
Specific intent to harm is not necessary. Many people are convicted
of crimes that were committed without specific intent to harm.
Rich Soyack
Paul Robbins
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <6f32ht$cq7$1...@gte2.gte.net> Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
> writes:
> >
That'll sure take me a while to get over. Boy those yadas really hurt.
You're not interested in equality, Lefty. You're interest in justifying
outrageous behavior by women by hiding behind the rhetoric of equality.
This worked a few years back. It doesn't anymore. We just see you for
what you are, as we see feminism for what it is.
Paul R
Mark Evans
Karen Hayward (king...@intercomm.com) wrote:
: On 21 Mar 1998 05:44:49 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
: Hemingway) wrote:
:
: > Sure I do. Women should be held JUST AS accountable
: > as are men. When the standards for male perpetrated
: > crimes involve "specific intent", the same standard
: > will be required in female perpetrated crimes. See
: > Mark, I'm only seeking equal treatment.
: >
: > Lefty
: >
:
: What the heck are 'male perpetrated crimes' and 'female perpetrated
: crimes'?????????
:
: For example...if a male and a female go out shoplifting and are
: caught...the nature of the crime does not change just because one of
: the particapants was a female and the other a male.
It is quite likely that they will be treated differently, when they
are caught. This is wrong.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <1998032216...@basement.replay.com> nob...@REPLAY.COM
(Anonymous) writes:
>
><3514c4aa....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
><6eu6n8$p...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
>
>On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:17:02 GMT, kille...@prom.com (Brain Death)
>wrote:
>
Hemingway), wrote:
>>
>> > Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>> > specific intent to do those things. I would say
>> > the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
>> > women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>> > same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>> > who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>> > since there is no child until there IS a child.
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be free to drink,
do drugs, etc., while> pregnant, and that society should look the other
way, because her fetus is not a child> (yet), and therefore can't be
abortion.
I don't EVER think society should look the other way.
After all, we don't want to treat children the same
way we treat rape victims. However, we do need to at
least make sure there's a child to discuss. If you
don't believe me, try taking out a life insurance
policy on a viable fetus. I think the ins. agent
will tell you to come back when there IS a baby.
-------------------------------
But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
>> steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance
from reluctantly> pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
>
>That is exactly what Lefty and associates want and have or are
getting.
I don't put much trust or faith in MEN and male
congresscritters....in running my life regarding
my human rights. I put more faith in the fact that
women already know how to abort without the need to
ask congress or men for permission. I also put
a lot of faith in new technology that enables women
to abort in privacy. Sometimes new technology
has age-old sources as well as age-old solutions.
----------------------------------
>What has not been posted so far (that I have read) is that men will
haveto pay the bill, women want to make all the calls but refuse to be
>financially/morally liable for them.
---------
So, are you promising here, that MY TAX DOLLARS
will not be spent to support crack babies?
------------------------
>
>(Begin sarcasm)If a pregnant woman is beaten by a man so severly that
>she aborts, he would only be liable for assault and battery on the
>woman, nothing about the (whatever the hell you want to call an unborn
>to salve your conscience) baby. It is nothing.
----------
In order for a person , m or f, to assault and kill
an "unborn child" there would have to be viability,
so that the fetus could have survived outside the
womb. The choice of carrying a fetus to term is not
up to a batterer....it's ONLY up to the person carrying
the fetus.
----------------------------
>
>So if a woman turns up pregnant and the father wants abortion, he only
>has to beat the shit outta her and he only serves for A&B. Not bad,
>still not equal but better.(end sarcasm)
-----------
He will have sevral things to deal with. If the woman
is like me, the first thing he'd have to deal with it
the hole....in the end of my gun. If he lived, he'd
then have to deal with the legal system (I wouldn't
....because it would have been self defense). When men
start self-aborting the fetus of another....the cost
will get pricey.
----------------------
> Lefty>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <1998032216...@basement.replay.com> nob...@REPLAY.COM
(Anonymous) writes:
>
><3514c4aa....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
>
>On 21 Mar 1998 03:41:24 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway)
>wrote:
>
>> Hemingway), wrote:
>> >
>> >> Crimes of murder and criminal battery requires the
>> >> specific intent to do those things. I would say
>> >> the ACLU simply want to make crimes commited by
>> >> women equal to crimes commited by men in that the
>> >> same degree of intent be used. Therefore, women
>> >> who ingest drugs CAN NOT INTEND to harm a child,
>> >> since there is no child until there IS a child.
>> >
>> >Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be free to drink,
do drugs, etc., while>pregnant, and that society should look the other
>> way, because her fetus is not a child>(yet), and therefore can't be
>> harmed?
>>
>> use. One is the notion that a fetus is NOT a child.
>> Another is the fact that the same degree of intent
>> should apply to women as to men. If you can protect
>> the fetus while not discriminating against women,
>> be my guest.
>> -----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> intent to murder he/she cannot be charged with such.
>> If a person has not intended to criminally batter
>> he/she may not be charged with such.
>>
>> But if the result of legal abortion is that we can't take any
>> >steps to protect any fetus, then maybe I'd better switch my stance
>> from reluctantly>pro-choice to reluctantly pro-life.
As I've said before, your position on abortion
is your own. It won't effect me, or the very
real rights of women who already understand
fully that men have no real ....power over us
anymore. We've taken things into our own
hands, and will continue to do so.
-------------------------
>
>Only women are free to make decisions that affect others.
>Using the logic that there was no intent, you could argue that men
don't>have to pay C$ because they didn't intend to make a baby.
DNA tests (or simple paternity tests) will prove
up the contributors. One needs intent to commit
a crime, but NOT (alas) a tort. (see tort law)
----------------------
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <marks-22039...@ip-55-001.sna.primenet.com>
ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>> ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
abortion
>> >rights. Heck, most women over thirty I meet are "biological clock
>> >tickers." Yes, abortion rights sounded nice back when women were
>> >complaining about EVERYTHING men did (even things they now demand
>> >today such as their doors held open) but now... many have come to
>> >realize that they don't have much in common with the movement.
>>
>> Sure they do. A woman who feels her biological clock
>> going off has just recently learned that she can pro-
>> create until she's (what was...) 50 or 60 years old,
>> if need be.
>
>And you can leave your eggs in the fridge for that period of time
>too, Lefty. I wouldn't want to eat an omelette cooked from them
>though. :-)
That's your choice...Marko, and mine.
-----------------
>
> > So, ladies, if you're feeling a little
>> lonely....just freeze those suckers.
>
>Not doable at this period in time. There are even questions
>about frozen sperm viability and chromosome damage.
There was just a sucessful one....born not
too long ago, and more will be forthcoming.
-----------
>
>> Also, artificial
>> insemination has been available for quite some time.
>> So, I'm not at all convinced that women are leaving
>> feminism in order to return to daddy knows best. That's
>> just what the "old" boys want to have us believe.
>
>You are free to disagree Lefty. Like I keep telling you: If women
>such as this can't _handle_ equality, that's not MY problem.
They CAN and DO.
>
>It's YOUR movement's problem. Let's continue:
What problem?
>
>> >For THOSE women, crack babies are NOT worth protecting abortion
>> >rights over. I will ask 30 something women at work a simple
question:> >Would you happily give up your legal right to an abortion
>> >in order to legally eliminate the problem of crack babies.
>> >
>> >I will post the answer.
>>
>> Hahahaha! Mark, they can't give up THEIR RIGHTS for
>> the simple reason that they CAN'T HAVE MINE.
>
>Ever hear of the vote, Lefty?
Yes...ever hear of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS....?
=================
>
>If so-called "rights" and "entitlements" can be voted and created
>through a series of judicial appointments and legislation...
>
>THEY CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY.
Who's going to DO THAT?
>
>Quite frankly, I rather LIKE the idea of a woman's absolute right
>to gestate crack babies. Please feel free to wear it around your
>movement's neck... like an albatross.
>
>Mark
The right to gestate or not gestate, will not
depend on the quality of the fetus, only the will
of the one carrying it and it's life.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>> >So do I. That's what I voted for 209: To end all _legal_ bias.
>> >
>> Ah, but it doesn't....the bias is still there;
>> the only thing that changes is the lack of
>> ability to challenge that bias.
>
>You are still free to do so, legally. You just have to... like
>all other torts, prove your case.
Do you REALLY believe that? You must be patriarchally
optomistic.
Mark's song
When 209's a bright canary yeeellllow
I forget every right I've ever seen
But they call me a cockeyed optimist
Immature and incurably green.
---------------------------------
>
>But you think even THAT is too much. That shouldn't surprise anyone
>here: You think someone who writes letters to their congresscritter
>is a "freedom fighter." :-) Lefty, you are way too overprotected
>for your own reality.
----------
How would you have the ability to know....what
I've done in my life regarding freedom fighting?
You HAVEN'T deluded yourself into thinking you
actually KNOW me....have you Mark?
----------------------------------
>
>> >If you want to talk about hidden, social bias. I'm afraid that
>> >the state can't do anything about that. :-) I keep telling you
>> >to not compare apples and oranges. I wish you would listen to me.
:-)
>>
>> Not being able to find equality in the workplace
>> violates equal protection. That's hardly a social
expectation....
>
>Actually... it is if women, on average, simply _aren't_ working the
same>hours at the same jobs with the same experience.
------------
The two are quite separate actually, one may work
full time or part time AND STILL experience gender
bias.
--------------------
>
>If I quit my job for a "social" decision to become a surfer, then
>my salary will be affected. Most people understand that point, Lefty.
>They don't think there is some god (or even court) given right for
>people to quit their job (or reduce their hours or take time off)
>and not have ANY consequences to their actions.
>
> > but ....you are free to think what
>> you like until you hear the back doors crack open.
>> And THAT'S JUST CA....Other states are laughing at us.
>
>If you have to "sneak through the back door", that only shows how
>desperate (and unrealistic) your own position has become.
>
>> >> So....DO something about it. Create safe houses for
>> >> crack-using mommies to be that they can voluntarily
>> >> enter.....with people there who will prevent them from
>> >> using.
>> >
>> >Ahhh yes! If there is ANY perfect example of Lefty's attitude that
>> >the world owes women a living, here it is.
>>
>> Not at all....It was YOU who said you wanted to help.
>> Sheesh! Looks like all you REALLY want to do is to
>> blame women and take away their equal rights. Big
>> surprise there.
>
>Nope. I did say that society (and their future children) might want
>them to alter their behaviour.
---------
Well, you can bring an equal horse to water, but
you can't MAKE HER DRINK. Nor can you pretend intent
exists where it clearly cannot.
-------------------------
>
>You're suggesting that we are responsible for these women's actions.
>I say that's laughable. Go ahead, keep using this position. I
couldn't>put it better myself...
>
>> >The state already seems willing to provide such a system for them.
>> >Heck, the women don't want to go. If they did, the state wouldn't
>> >be seeking an injunction against them.
>>
>> No....the state wants to incarcerate them, and/or
>> force them into some form of rehab or institution.
>> Or...to criminalize that which they can do with
>> their own bodies.
>
>Which is what drug and prostitution laws already do... :-)
--------
Name one law that tells a woman if and when
she must gestate or not gestate. At least
pick something that LOOKS like an apple.
--------------------
>
>And if those things were legal (and untouchable by law) and the
>prostitutes and drug abusers were hanging out in front of people's
>houses... you can bet that they would be re-criminalized... quickly.
-------
Actually, zoning takes care of that.
>
>Lefty... if you abuse a right... that's a good way to get it taken
>away. (That is... assuming that abortion is some kind of super right.
It's about as fundamental as it gets...a persons bod.
---------------------
>
> > If they have voluntary centers
>> in safe houses, these women might be very willing
>> to go.
>
>They already have rehab centers above. What more do they want Lefty?
The same things men have.
>
>Oh, that's right: They want to EXPLOIT their unborn children to
>get special, nice housing. :-)
Well, if you're not concerned about baby being
born in rat-infested housing, why on earth would
you be concerned about crack...? Or is it more
a simple case of wanting control over women's
bodies that concerns you?
-----------------------
>
>> Also, education is very important.
>
>Everyone in the US has a free education already. These women don't
>seem to want it. Another liberal mantra that hasn't worked...
>
>> a thought....if you want a legal way to force women
>> into things (this shoul appeal to you Mark), have
>> addiction declared a mental illness, and take them
>> into protective custody to protect society. :] Of
>> course, an ACLU type might want to compare the number
>> of male addicts you are incarcerating.
>
>Why should they? Men are already disproportinately sentenced and
>arrested (compared to women who are questioned) already and the ACLU
>hasn't peeped.
--------
Men who commit more crime will tend to get arrested
more.
--------------------
>
>Of course... you do realize that the mental health system has been
>abused in other countries (most notably, the Soviet Union.)
>I would rather do this straight.
Ah...you mean by pretending that there are no
people with mental problems and just calling them
homeless so your tax dollars aren't taken.
--------------------
>
>Actually, I would rather do NOTHING. Let the crack moms make feminism
>and motherhood into a sham and con-job. Best anti-feminism publicity
>I can think of...
---------
Whatever you say Mark :]
>
>> >Lefty, you seem to think that women have ZERO responsibility to
>> >gestate healthy children, zip. That unless the state pays for
women>> >to do a proper job, they won't.
>>
>> I did. I took my little vitamins ...gave up coffee
>> for 18 grueling months for each child (nursing) and
>> gained and lost about 20 lbs with one and 32 with
>> the other. I had financial support...my own and
>> that of my mate. I also had emotional support from
>> friends and my folks. Not all women are as lucky
>> as me.
>
>Or maybe it has less to do with "luck" than complete irresponsibility.
---------
Maybe that's what's easier for you to think.
--------------
>
>If a woman alianates her mate, family, friends and society... is
>it any surprise that she has a tough time of things?
---------
What if she ran away from a spousal abuser and
ended up on the streets? We don't know her story
.....there are plenty of them.
-------------------------
>
>Men have known this all along, Lefty. We've been living in the REAL
>world. Please come and join us.
---------
Known what, that men often want women to be subservient
and sweet in order to survive?
-----------------
>
>> >Tell you what: LET these women breed crack babies. A person who
>> >abuses their freedom, doesn't have it for very long. I consider
>> >them a representative of your movement.
>>
>> Well, there ARE things we can do....but lets
>> do it wisely and not by trying to make women
>> second class citizens, which is JUST what you
>> seem bent on doing.
>
>I hardly think that requiring _anyone_ to use their rights in a
responsible>manner is making them a second class citizen.
It does if it requires one set of rules for one
group and another for another.
----------------
>
>You are free to believe that the world owes you a living, but I
reserve>the right to disagree.
>
>> >If YOU don't want your movement to get a bad name, YOU put up the
>> >money. I'm not cleaning up your messes.
>>
>> It's not up to feminists....to clean up crack moms.
>
>No problem. The Patriarchy will be happy to do it for you. :-)
>
>PLEASE LEFTY! Don't do anything about it!
>
>I'm BEGGING YOU! :-)
>
>> Where on earth did you ever get the idea that
>> feminism is responsible for the woes of the world?
>
>I didn't say that. I did say that they were responsible for the legal
>climate that allows this condition to exist. If you disagree with me,
>stop defending them...
>
>> Seeking and maintaining equal rights takes up all
>> of our time there. Now, folks who ARE feminist,
>> may also want to help educate crack moms.
>
>Go right ahead. But I don't think these women are really all that
>interested in hearing how crack damages their fetus. On the contrary,
>I think your attitude that fetuses are nothing but objects to
>exploit for their gain in welfare and potential child-support
>has only CREATED the situation.
---------
You're just beating your drum...like Pangblister. It
doesn't mean anything Mark. That kind of mumbo jumbo
doesn't solve problems; it only creates more reasons
for women like me to fight harder.
----------------------------
>
>> >> >Welcome to the "brave new world" of crack babies, mauranding
>> teenage>> children>of welfare moms, and other "benefits" that
society> is pinning> right>on the shoulders of the feminist movement.
>> >>
>> >> Better yet....learn the difference between valid law
>> >> and UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
>> >
>> >*yawn* We're not discussing the law... we're discussing the world
>> >your supreme court created absolute right is offering us.
>>
>> Well, that means you have to follow legal channels
>> to correct problems....not on the backs of only one
>> gender, but so that the problem is addressed without
>> the need to take away fundamental rights.
>
>Aren't you the one who just said that you are going to seek a "back
door">solution to 209 which we _all_ know is going to be on the backs
of>the white males?
Ah, but those solutions are all within the law, and
they are simply going to relieve white males of the
burden of carrying all that entitlement.
-----------
>
>You LOVE to exploit white males Lefty... because you have dehumanized
them.>Now you accuse me of the same thing only vice versa.
---------
If the shoe fits.
>
>I argue that I haven't dehumanized women. I have criticized
INDIVIDUAL>women's actions, and asked that those INDIVIDUAL women be
held accountable>for their actions.
You can't get blood from a rock, Mark. Where in
your upbringing did you hear that it was possible
to make poor people pay? That is one of the most
stupid things you've said, Mark. It's a fairy
tale. You can't criminalize civil behavior just
because you want someone to pay. In the end, the
taxpayer ends up paying...for all of it...the
poverty, the drugs themselve, the crack baby, and
the prison. How stupid.
---------------------------------
>
>That's different than asking men, as a group, to suffer reverse
discrimination>or a lack of legal choices to pay for your utopian
schemes. >Point one finger at me but point three back at yourself.
=========
What utopian schemes? Do you call simple equal treat
ment utopia?
-----------
>
>> >Or maybe she might just get pregnant in order to push her jailers
>> >into making a deal. This system can create even MORE crack babies.
>> >Isn't logic a complex thing?
>>
>> Well, she can bonk a prison guard with or without
>> a deal pending AND with or without your permission.
>> What is complex, Mark, is life, love and law....and
>> possibly a few other things.
>
>Agreed.
>
>This isn't a simple "constitutional" issue. You are the one who
>sought to simplify it, remember?
----------
I use the law as a framework for my social
arguments...you may have noticed :] The reason
I do this, is to provide a historical perspective
to what we discuss; it tends to keep us from
riding on the wings of that windmill you keep
tilting at.
-----------------------
>
>Now that you have lost... you change your position... yet again.
>round and round she goes...
Now, do you REALLY believe that either of us is
winning or losing? I would say that after the
browbeating I gave you initially, about cutting
up my context, that our arguments are just political
debate.
------------------------
>
>> >>..Ones that don't offend the Constitution.
>> >
>> >I don't see the right to gestate crack babies ANYWHERE in the
>> constitution.
>>
>> That's only because you don't know where to look.
>> :] (or choose not to look)
>
>If the document is so sufficently vague that... a court can derive
>just about ANY right from it... than it's a worthless document.
>You might as well have a magic 8 ball up on the court and have
>them shake it and then write their opinions. :-)
----------
The magic of it, isn't ONLY the interpretation...
it's the balance of powers. I have a copy of it
here on my wall.
-----------------
>
>Which would seem to be your position: Having lost the debate
intellectually,>and now even publically, you are reduced to having to
rely upon>friendly bureaucrats to surreptiously twist the law in your
favor.
---------
Well now. Which states in the union do you see as
following in CA's footsteps? Alabama might be a
good candidate...maybe Mississippi...not Texas,
much to my surprise....You see, Mark, not everyone
sees things the same way you do. And, most of us
realize that there ARE things we CAN do to make
the world we live in a more equitible place. Some
of us concentrate on law to accomplish that. Others
work thru church groups or civic groups. Some of
us just stay home and teach equality to our children.
Then there are those of us ...who piss at the moon,
blow out the candles and just let the world muddle
around in darkness.
-----------------------------
>
>This isn't much different than a racist cop stopping blacks in a white
>neighborhood and giving them speeding tickets. They have the
authority>to do so, and nobody can prove what they are doing is wrong,
but it's pretty wrong and pathetic nonetheless.
----------
I agree. It's wrong to hire based on bias. I'm not
sure YOU really agree with that even though you voted
for 209 and I did not.
----------------
>
>Lefty... I'm not afraid of democracy and the written law. Why are
you?
Hmmm. I'm not afraid of many things, Mark. Airplane
food, drinks that aren't opened in front of me...
standing alone on my positions regarding democracy doesn't
scare me. I've never even been afraid to be the
first one at a party...
-------------------------
>
>> What makes you think that Ginsberg and Souter would
>> let Thomas run amok....even though Souter is not
>> liberal....he's quite astute....and then there's
>> O'conner....who never fails to surprise. No...I'm
>> not worried, especially since poor old Thomas must
>> have peed his pants when he had to recuse himself
>> from the Citadel case.
>
>Lefty... you really are quite shallow aren't you?
---------
I hope not.
>
>I haven't heard this kind of talk since class president elections
>in the 5th grade. Right down to the peeing thing...
---------
Well, I know it isn't LADYLIKE Mark, but the truth
is, I don't use a complicated word when simple ones
will do.
---------------
>
>> >Which would make sense considering that the people are beginning
>> >to feel the same way. I would like to KISS those crack moms:
>> >they have done very much to show what feminism _IS_.
>>
>> What is it you think they're proving...that lack
>> of education, and poverty provides a good way to
>> raise kids?
>
>Millions of people who are poor raise their kids with some problems,
>but they do a good job nonetheless.
---------
But Mark, it seems like just yesterday that you
were bellowing about women who had kids in poverty
and how they should be taken away and given up for
adoption.....whahappan!
>
>Nobody FORCED her to do crack, Lefty. In fact, I could argue that
>her poverty should have made crack more expensive. Heck... _I_
>can't afford crack even if I wanted it.
>
>> I would be willing to bet you that
>> most crack moms would have difficulty spelling feminism.
>
>Nope. But you don't. And you are the one defending them. Please,
>keep doing so. Don't stop.
----------
I'm not defending THEM Mark, just their right to
equal treatment under the law. How do you think
PD's make a living Mark; do you think THEY are
loving those creeps, perverts and murderers, or
do you think they are doing what they must to
defend THE CONSTITUTION! To BE a PD, you must
have a deep and abiding love for human rights
promised therein. BTW, I'm not a lawyer.
-----------
>
>> >And men aren't held responsible for their actions prior to birth
>> >but after conception? Care for me to quote from you?
>>
>> Actions that are causative to co-creation can be
>> easily proven with a simple blood test. A baby
>> that doesn't exist has no complaint.
>
>Great! At the moment of co-creation, do a simple blood test
>on the BABY and we'll see if one exists. :-)
>
>Next.
That's not necessary Mark. Tort law doesn't
demand a chain of CONTROL leading to liability.
Nice try tho.
-----------------
>
>> >Tell you what: I think the state should put the child in someone
>> else's>care and then have her pay child-support for the next 40
years
>> or so.
>>
>> I'm perfectly ok with that solution...but let's not
>> forget daddy....he can also pay support; after all
>> it was also HIS choice to put his seed into crackmom.
>
>No problem. The father is usually dead at this point in time or
>already in deep trouble. I fail to see how his situation can get
>much worse. :-)
Indeed....he's in the same boat usually...that
is...if crackmom even KNOWS who the father is.
>
>> >There... that's CIVIL law. Trust me... after living like a slave
>> >for 40 years... she'll WISH she had been thrown in jail! :-)
>>
>> As I said Mark. I don't have any problem with that
>> as long as it doesn't interfere with any possibility
>> of adoption....which is in the child's best interests.
>
>Orphanages allow for adoption. Not only that, but you claim that
>a poverty stricken home is no place to raise a child. No problemo.
--------
:] I think you know that poverty won't change anything.
Parental rights still exist, but they NEED NOT
for crack mom....and here I will support your efforts
to change things for that child.
---------------
>
>The state supposedly can provide good daycare, right? They should
>also provide adequate orphanages. (All paid for by the mom
>over the next 40 years and daddy, (if they can find him. :-)
-------
or mommy, if they can find her. :] We don't need
to put crackbaby in an orphange IF we can find a home
for him or her. Adoption is a better choice than
institutionalization.
----------------------
>
>Good luck. (In Philadelphia, it's not uncommon for a single man to
>father a DOZEN kids then die from a gang war. I know because I
>used to live there and SAW it all the time.)
---------
Sure...spurposse style...what can you expect from
the kind of rape-culture we have.
----------------
>
>> >That's why I want those who gestate children... held responsible
for> >their actions.
>> >
>> Me too. Along with play-a-long poppa.
>
>Well, when he gestates, I'll hold him responsible too.
I'll get there before you, Mark. If we know poppa
we'll charge him right along with crackmom. However,
if the child is adopted they're both off that particular
hook.
-----------------
>
>:-)
>
>Talk to mother nature, that's what you tell us right?
>
>Mark
No problem. I don't have any quarrel with the kind
old lady. Well, I suppose she could have given me
stonger upper arms.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <35155e3f...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen
Hayward) writes:
>
>On 22 Mar 1998 15:52:11 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>>In <6f1qlc$ij6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> do...@letterbox.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a
>>person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
>>agree with this.
>>
>> I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
>> to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
>
>Actually, you are incorrect there...here in Nevada, in certain
>body. In fact there is one, the Mustang Ranch, about 13 miles from
>where I live. Nevada has around 47 licensed brothels, where one may
>prostitute one's body if one so chooses. :-) They are licensed, I
>believe, by the Prostitution Commision (a state commision) and must, I
>believe, undergo monthly checks, just like the casinos have to.
>
>women can visit. :-)
>
>Karen
---------
Well, I was speaking in my home state, of CA, and
every OTHER state in the union. In
NV, prostitution is indeed legal. In fact it is
the ONLY state where it is legal. I'm very happy
not to live there however; although I want to see
prostitution decriminalized, I don't want my tax
dollars to support it's upkeep.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <35156eb0...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen
Hayward) writes:
(edit)
>Putting all that aside though...that is not what we are talking about
>here. What we are talking about is whether or not a woman, once she
>finds out she is pregnant and decides to continue with the pregnancy,
>has a responsibility to not knowingly ingest something, that she
>knowingly may cause harm to her unborn baby.
---------
A woman's right to gestate or not gestate is a continuing
right; it doesn't stop when she does something you don't
approve of to her body. We CAN convict on an illegal
action like possession of an illegal substance we cannot
criminally convict on child abuse when there is no child,
since it is up to her whether there will be a child.
Criminal intent is just as necessary to prove for women
as it is for men....unless you live in Irac.
----------------
>
>If the women reads a newspaper or magazine, listens to TV or the
>radio...then the chances are that she will know that certain
>substances , may harm her unborn baby.
-----------
Women don't have to read to form intent; they have
to HAVE intent.
----------
>
>'I'm sorry little Bert, that you suffer from FAS, I knew that drinking
>alcohol would probably cause harm to you, but I didn't mean it too'
----------
If little Bert didn't exist when potential mommy took
the drink, he was only a sparkle in his daddy's eye.
Try to get a life insurance policy on Little Bert
BEFORE he's born, if you don't believe me.
----------------------
>
>'I'm sorry Judge, that the little girl died in that car crash, I knew
>that drinking would impair my driving, but I didn't mean it too'
---------
Well let's see. I can bring in my witnesses to show
she had been drinking....and driving. Then I can easily
show how drinking and getting behind the wheel is wanton
and reckless disregard for already existing...human
life. The difference is I can show intent to harm an
existing life here. Potential momma is just that
potential.
-------------------------
>
>Heck, if we're going to allow that excuse in the first case, we may as
>well allow it in the second case.....I mean, neither meant to cause
>harm when they decided to drink....the fact that someone was damaged
>or died...well that's just life....it was all that life's fault that
>they happenned to be in the wrong place or the wrong uterus at the
>wrong time.
----------
I guess you don't understand the difference between
reality and potential. Or between intent viz reckless
disregard to existing life and only the mere possibility
of life.
------------------
>
>Responsibility??? Nahhhh...the supremes haven't said that that's legal
>yet...:-)
>
>Karen
----------
Sure they have, but it must be applied with equality.
Lefty
>
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f43h7$6u9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> tre...@jhb.lia.net writes:
>
(edit)
>
>Back to the theme. Would you please, Madame pseudocounsellor, explain
to us a>proper set of charges for the following hypothetical situation
(not really>hypothetical in too many instances, unfortunately):
>
>Crack daddy, in fit of drug-induced psychosis (or patriarchal rapture,
if that>helps your reading pleasure), beats up crack mama. Crack mama
aborts as a>result of the beating.
>
>Two questions, in fact: What should appear on the charge sheet? What
WOULD>appear on the charge sheet in several jurisdictions?
What Should appear if I could wave my legal wand?
. Assault and/or battery of crackmomma
. Induced abortion of a fetus of another (which carries
the same penalties as murder)
What DOES appear will depend on jurisdiction.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6f44hq$7rn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> do...@letterbox.com writes:
>
><snip>
>
>> >Lefty, have you ever seen a baby going through drug/alcohol
withdrawl?
>>
>> Yes, and on more than one occasion.
>>
>> It is>probably the most unpleasent sight I have ever witnessed.
>> Following your argument, there is no such thing as manslaughter
>> (causing death without>intent). What if the mother gave the baby
drugs
>> after the birth, the effect>will be the same, so why is it child
abuse
>> after birth but not before.
>>
>> Because the mother would have to have INTENT to harm
>> a child. If the child doesn't exist and may not ever
>> exist (sometimes drugs even kill the fetus) there can
>> be (at the most...and even that would be hard to prove)
>> INTENT to get rid of the fetus.
>> -----------------------------
>
>Still obsessed with intent, Lefty? Some crimes DO NOT need specific
intent>proved. Manslaughter, death by dangerous driving, death by
drink driving etc.
-----------
Murder requires intent. Murder by a drunk driver
requires intent. Abuse of a child requies intent.
If I am tickling my child....and I accidently gouge
her neck with my finger nail causing a scar.....the
court will not be able to find me guilty of child
abuse for the simple reason that I did not INTEND
TO HARM HER. (This actually happened, and my
now grown daughter still has the scar) Now, back
to the story. If CPS thinks I have abused my
child, they may take her from me. What they cannot
do is find my guilty of child abuse with comes with
a penal sentence. Now, if my child grows up and
decides that good old mom was NEGLIGENT in her
crazy tickling urges she can sue me. What she cannot
do is impose a criminal penalty for lack of intent.
BTW, to this day, when I make her eat her veggies,
or write her thesis, she tells me she's going to
report me to the proper authorities. :]
Lefty
>
>
>
>> (this>all ignores the fact that possesion of cocaine is illegal,
as
>> is the use of>it).
>>
>> Indeed....AND that is where the action really is.
>> >
>> >I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that
a
>> person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
>> agree with this.
>>
>> I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
>> to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
Max Burke
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6f3m28$9...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes:
> ---------
> How many men do you know who are arrested for what
> they put into their bodies? I'm not talking about
> drug possession....or drug sales... I'm talking
> about simply being addicted to drugs. =20
>>Dont men get arrested for being drunk in public or for DUI in your
>world lefty? Dont the police arrest male drug addicts for possession
>of drugs, dont those same male addicts get sent to prison on being
>convicted of illegal drug use?
> ----------
> Well then....you made my argument for me....thanks.
> When we arrest and convict women for the same charges
> men face, we can DETAIN THEM. That's what I've
> been saying...all along. We don't CONVICT men for
> the personal choices they make regarding what they
> ingest, UNLESS what they ingest is illegal. The
> same law applies to women. So, when you convict
> a woman, it has to be done with the same standards
> in mind.
> -------------------------------
So tell us (again) what women drug addicts are charged with, what are they convicted of and why are they imprisoned, if it isn't for the possession and use of illegal substances? (The very same reason male drug addicts are charged, convicted, and imprisoned
for)
snip...
>>No drug addict can claim they did not know they would do harm to =
>>themselves or their unborn children.... the inconvenience of the woman
>>drug addict being pregnant with a fetus (which does not have legal =
>>protection as a human being), does not alter the fact that the end =
>>result is a drug addicted baby, caused by the mothers intent to get =
>>'high' on drugs when pregnant.... whether she knew she was pregnant or
>=>not is irrelevant, as it is with the drunk driver who kills/injures =
>>others, as they also never knew their intent to drive while drunk was
>=>going to result in someone else's death and/or injury....=20
>>In short not knowing the consequences of their actions is no excuse,
>no =reason to deny that they have caused harm to an innocent victim....
>>
>>This belief of yours is flying like a lead balloon lefty.....
> Well, only time will tell how the COURT will interpret
> this action. As to drunk driving.....we all know that
> drinking and driving is, iteself a reckless disregard
> for human life. With FAS or cokehead moms....there still
> isn't a human being...and that issue ....that there MAY
> never BE a drug induced human being will be a problem
> in showing intent.
But the end result usually is a drug addicted baby through the culpable actions of the mother....
The end result (as I understand it) is that US courts say the mother is responsible for the baby's condition, and has committed two separate offences (at least), in taking illegal drugs, and through the intentional action of taking the drugs abused and endangered the life of her child, and the women are convicted (and sometimes imprisoned) on both those counts....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# There are lots of things that you can brush under the carpet about yourself until you’re faced with somebody whose needs won’t be put off.
Angela Carter (1940–92), British author.
Interview in Marxism Today (London; Jan. 1985), on being a mother for the first time, at age 43.
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Replace the obvious with IHUG to reply via email
Visit my Photo Gallery at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke/index.htm
Max Burke
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6f3mfe$d...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes:
> It isn't quite that simple. Drug addicted men ALSO
> contribute DNA .....are we prepared to trace back that
> within the child to make sure the proud poppa WASN'T
> drug addicted at conception? I didn't think so.
> ------------------------------
>>Its not the drug addicted men fathering these children who turn them =
>>into drug addict's lefty, it's the mothers who continue to take the =
>>drugs while pregnant.... In this case the only one responsible is the
>=>mother, no blame can be attributed to the father for the drug
>addiction =>of the baby....
> -----------
> Ah....so you want to treat ONLY the addiction be-
> cause you claim that ONLY mother is responsible.
Yes, because the mother IS they ONLY one responsible fro the baby's drug addiction....
> Why shouldn't we trace back each and every baby
> born with congenital problems to make sure that
> DADDY never took drugs? Perhaps we should, while
> we're looking, compare babies to see if dad should
> have taken vitamins to prevent birth defects.
> ------------------
We are talking about drug addicted bay's lefty, NOT congenital deformities..... (stick to the subject please)
(Your feminist rules of debate dont apply to me lefty, if you wish to discuss congenital deformities caused by drug use, start a new thread....)
>>Reading your post's that fact is what's really getting up your nose =
>>isn't it, the fact that men cant be held responsible for drug addicted
>>babies....=20
>
> --------
> No what get's "up my nose" is men who are willing to
> pull the splinter out of a woman's eye when there's
> a mote in their own. :]
> --------------
A Splinter will do FAR more harm to an eye than a 'mote' lefty, I hope you realise that....
And I didn't expect you to have any sympathy for men actually trying to HELP women that have 'splinters' in their eyes, that would be the reason it gets up your nose all right (Thanks for pointing it out to me....)
> ---------
> No....I don't think that's their position at all. I
> have no problem with putting more women in jail...as
> long as it's done CONSTITUTIONALLY.
> ------------
What shred of proof do you have that pregnant women drug addicts are being imprisoned unconstitutionally?
Why dont you post your proof......
>>What's unconstitutional about jailing drug addicted pregnant women,
>>who are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for the possession and
>>use of illegal drugs lefty....
> Nothing at all....as long as the sentences are
> based upon the same sentences men have and NOT
> upon gestation.
> -----------------
What proof do you have that this happens? cite the cases YOU know where women have been imprisoned because they are pregnant, as opposed to the being drug users.... (I'm calling you on this one, produce the 'goods' lefty....)
>The laws against drug use are duly constituted laws under the constitution of the USA aren't they.....
>>The fact they take drugs knowing full well that the are harmful (to
>>the point of causing death), to themselves, and any unborn child is
>>proof of intent to cause harm.... (You cant tell me women drug
>>addicts dont know the dangers of taking drugs, to themselves, and
>>their unborn child, they dont even have the dubious excuse of
>>ignorance in this case...)
>>Just as a drunk driver knows they can and do cause death and injury, =
>>because of their intent to drive while drunk, so the drug addicted =
>>mother knows she is guilty of causing injury to her unborn child....
>>I would just love to see a defence lawyer try to claim his drug
>>addicted =>client did NOT know the danger they were putting themselves
>>and their =>unborn child in, when they took the drugs....
> -----------
> So....if a woman doesn't KNOW she's pregnant, and she
> IS pregnant, does that mean that women can no longer
> legally drink so as to prevent what you call her "intent"?
No, as far as I'm aware its not illegal for women to consume alcohol in the US (pregnant or otherwise).... But the same applies, to women who consume alcohol and who know they are pregnant as to women who know they are pregnant and consume drugs, both situations can and often do lead to drug and alcohol addicted babies, how long does it take for a woman to know she is pregnant?
2 months, 3 months? If they continue to take drugs and consume alcohol in quantities that will affect their unborn child then there is 'intent' to endanger the life and/or health of the unborn child....
> So, what you REALLY want here, is for men to be able
> to drink, but not women. Why don't you move to Irac;
> that's the policy there. :]
Its spelt Iraq lefty......
Any woman with the least bit of compassion, any woman with the slightest sense of responsibility (to her unborn child), any woman with the least trace of humanity, will do everything possible to protect her unborn child, even if it means she will have to give up something as inconsequential as having a drink..... All of the above which seem to be lacking in you, especially when you think men might have a imaginary 'advantage over women (and you personally).....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# How it infuriates a feminist bigot, when she is forced to drag out her dark convictions!
Karen Hayward
On 23 Mar 1998 02:21:27 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
>In <35155e3f...@news.intercomm.com> king...@intercomm.com (Karen
>Hayward) writes:
>>
>>On 22 Mar 1998 15:52:11 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>>Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>>>In <6f1qlc$ij6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> do...@letterbox.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I understand your position, (correct me if I get this wrong), that a
>>>person>has the right to do whatever they want to there own body. I
>>>agree with this.
>>>
>>> I don't...a person doesn't have the legal right
>>> to prostitute her own body. No...the right is very
>>
>>Actually, you are incorrect there...here in Nevada, in certain
>>counties, it is quite legal to work in a brothel and prostitute one's
>>body. In fact there is one, the Mustang Ranch, about 13 miles from
>>where I live. Nevada has around 47 licensed brothels, where one may
>>prostitute one's body if one so chooses. :-) They are licensed, I
>>believe, by the Prostitution Commision (a state commision) and must, I
>>believe, undergo monthly checks, just like the casinos have to.
>>
>>There are even a couple of brothels that have male prostitutes that
>>women can visit. :-)
>>
>>Karen
>
> ---------
> Well, I was speaking in my home state, of CA, and
> every OTHER state in the union. In
That's not what you say in your message...in fact there is nothing in
your message that in anyway implies that you were speaking of CA and
every OTHER state in the union. :-)
> NV, prostitution is indeed legal. In fact it is
> the ONLY state where it is legal. I'm very happy
> not to live there however; although I want to see
> prostitution decriminalized, I don't want my tax
> dollars to support it's upkeep.
Why not??? What makes legal prostitution any different from any other
career or job choice that a woman might want to make??? It's a
profession where, when legal, women can make a lot of money....in
fact, some of the prostitutes and other sex industry workers here in
NV, who work legally, support themselves in style....own nice
houses...drive BMW's and other luxury cars...are paying their way
through college. It may not be your choice of career...it ain't
mine.... but if a woman or a man wants to do it....then they have my
support :-)
Actually, as far as I know, prostitution here in NV is not supported
by anyone's tax dollars, including yours. The women pay taxes....the
brothels pay taxes...just like any other business. How do you think
that it could be supported by your tax dollar???
In fact, as I mentioned in my other message on this subject...the
federal govt..and i guess by default 'The People'..which I guess also
includes you...was quite prepared at one point to go into the brothel
business, when they seized the Mustang Ranch. :-):-)
Karen
Brain Death
On 22 Mar 1998 01:29:18 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway), wrote:
> We cannot legislate morality;
That is so asinine on its face that I can't believe you don't have a winky on the end of
the line. We can and do legislate morality every single day. We decide that something is
wrong, say driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher and we pass laws against
it. We decide that it really isn't fair for insiders to trade their stock with advance
knowledge of information that will move that stock's price and we pass laws against it.
We decide it really is awful to commit crimes of hate and we pass laws against it. All of
these things are morality--something that we decided was wrong. There is nothing
objectively wrong with, for example a BAC of .08 or even .09--in my state, you'd still be
legal.
> all we can do is provide
> laws that apply EQUALLY to both genders and, hopefully,
> educate those whose moral convictions and/or ability
> to cope are less than our own.
So in other words you are ready to release male rapists until we have an equal number of
male and female rapists in prison.
>>Shouldn't be too hard--who was responsible for introducing the alcohol
>or other drug into>her system?
>
> It isn't quite that simple. Drug addicted men ALSO
> contribute DNA .....are we prepared to trace back that
> within the child to make sure the proud poppa WASN'T
> drug addicted at conception? I didn't think so.
> ------------------------------
Wow, that is certainly sophisticated knowledge of biology you're showing off there. You
mean that the DNA of the male could be addicted and that's why all these crack babies are
showing up? I never thought of that! Jeez, must be the patriarchy that's keeping this
info under wraps.
> If a woman is forced by a man to drink or smoke crack while pregnant,
>the man>is responsible for the damage done to the baby, or should I say
>fetus. If she is not>forced by another person, then she herself is the
>responsible agent.
>
> If she collects wild mushrooms and damages her child
> by eating a toadstool by mistake, I think she deserves
> the gas chamber.
Oh, so now drinking or smoking crack is as innocent as eating a toadstool by mistake.
I'll tell you what, I'll make the trade--we'll prosecute women who do either.
And, if she is painting the child's
> nursery, and she raises the paintbrush above her head
> tangleing the cord around the child's neck....off with
> her head.
Yes, we'll throw those women in too, although it might strain the prison system. There
have been a rash of these incidents locally. The local weather man has a slogan, Don't
Paint High or Baby May Die.
> Perhaps, one beer could result in brain
> damage, so if she's at Disneyland on a hot day, and
> has one.....she should be stoned.
> ------------------------------
Yes, very, very sophisticated knowledge of biology. And an extremely limited knowledge of
what pregnant women drink on a hot day.
>(Silly question--you>probably agree with the ACLU
>that there should be no jails at all).
>
> ---------
> No....I don't think that's their position at all. I
> have no problem with putting more women in jail...as
> long as it's done CONSTITUTIONALLY.
Do you have a problem with putting women in jail for producing crack-addicted or
fetal-alcohol babies, as long as it's done constitutionally? Because I'm not advocating
putting other women in jail here (except for them toadstool-eaters and high painters). As
for the ACLU, I know that it used to be part of their materials, but I couldn't find it in
a half hour of searching, so I'll cede that part of the point to you for now.
>>So by your notion of the justice system, a man gets in a car drunk and
>kills someone,>there's no criminal intent, it just happened and we let
>the guy walk away, right? Maybe>in Chappaquiddick that's the law, but
>not where I live.
>
> I explained that in a previous post...* see
> Depraved heart murder.....intent is STILL
> required but is derived in another manner,
> one that cannot apply to a woman who has a beer.
It is derived from the commonsensical notion that this is wrong and we ought to pass a law
against it. You know, that thing called morality that we can't legislate?
> We shall see. The law that I've seen pass constitutional
> muster on this issue has been based on criminal action
> and not on the gestation status of the person.
Hmmm, you mean that they arrested her on the evidence of drug possession and addiction
with the evidence being her crack child? But couldn't that also simply indicate that the
father was a drug addict--given your point earlier about the addicted DNA?
BD
Brain Death
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:07:07 +0100 (MET), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous), wrote:
>(Begin sarcasm)If a pregnant woman is beaten by a man so severly that
>she aborts, he would only be liable for assault and battery on the
>woman, nothing about the (whatever the hell you want to call an unborn
>to salve your conscience) baby. It is nothing.
>
>So if a woman turns up pregnant and the father wants abortion, he only
>has to beat the shit outta her and he only serves for A&B. Not bad,
>still not equal but better.(end sarcasm)
No, this is not sarcasm, it is reductio ad absurdum, a well-known debating technique. You
take the other side's argument and take it to its logical conclusion, which of course is
horrendous and absurd. Good job. I thought about another--couple of drunks at a bar when
a pregnant woman wanders in, looking for directions. Have a drink with us, they say. No,
I'm pregnant, she says. So they force her to drink, prying her mouth open and pouring it
down. No crime as far as the baby goes, according to Lefty. It would be an assault on
the woman, certainly, but hardly a serious one--not a black eye in sight, she probably
wouldn't show any ill effects a week later. But her baby...
BD
Jean Coyle
Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> > ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
> > >rights. Heck, most women over thirty I meet are "biological clock
> > >tickers." Yes, abortion rights sounded nice back when women were
> > >complaining about EVERYTHING men did (even things they now demand
> > >today such as their doors held open) but now... many have come to
> > >realize that they don't have much in common with the movement.
> >
> > Sure they do. A woman who feels her biological clock
> > going off has just recently learned that she can pro-
> > create until she's (what was...) 50 or 60 years old,
> > if need be.
>
> And you can leave your eggs in the fridge for that period of time
> too, Lefty. I wouldn't want to eat an omelette cooked from them
> though. :-)
>
> > lonely....just freeze those suckers.
>
> Not doable at this period in time. There are even questions
> about frozen sperm viability and chromosome damage.
>
> > insemination has been available for quite some time.
> > So, I'm not at all convinced that women are leaving
> > feminism in order to return to daddy knows best. That's
> > just what the "old" boys want to have us believe.
>
> You are free to disagree Lefty. Like I keep telling you: If women
> such as this can't _handle_ equality, that's not MY problem.
>
>
> > >rights over. I will ask 30 something women at work a simple question:
> > >Would you happily give up your legal right to an abortion
> > >in order to legally eliminate the problem of crack babies.
> > >
> > >I will post the answer.
Personally I think a better question would be, "do you support a
rationing of health care that might mean that a child born prematurely
will only be given pallative care and supports because the uncertainty
of outcome of the child does not justify a 1 million dollar price tag to
society.
For every 1 million that gets spent to keep a crack addicted premie
alive, there's a bunch of other kids not getting vaccinations, Head
start and other programs that would give those born relatively healthy
the leg up they need in our society.
Go to a drug infested neighborhood, ask the working class, non drug
using people who live there if they'd trade the right to demand a
million dollars in treatment for a crack premie for more Head Start
and early childhood vaccination and health programs for their own kids.
Jean
Paul Ciszek
It seems to me that people are overlooking a simpler aspect of the
pregnant-women-using-crack argument:
I can be jailed for using cocaine. Why shouldn't women also go to jail
for using cocaine?
pci...@blackhole.nyx.net | "Mundus Vult Decipi"
Please remove "blackhole" | ("The world wants to be deceived")
when replying. Thank you. | --James Branch Cabell
Jean Coyle
PangK wrote:
> 99% of the women seeking PARTIAL BIRTH abortiuons were MARRIED women
> Carol Ann..... Often this
> proceedure was done AGAINST the father's desires. ANd
> NOT for any VALID medical reason! But the CONVINIENCE
> of the MOTHER!
I read a ton of family's personal accounts of their PBA experiences
when PBA was first in the spotlight.What I saw were COUPLES who faced
agonizing choices TOGETHER when faced with fetuses with heartbreakingly
severe medical conditions,often coupled with medical problems of the
mother.
I highly doubt that many folks who simply don't want a child,any
child decide to go all the way thru the third trimster, enduring the
discomforts of a pregnancy rather than simply obtaining a first trimster
abortion
> It's a real BITCH Carol when you go to Vegas and put that dollar in the slot. When you don't win. YOU would toss a shit fit and demand it back! When you make a baby you don't always get a perfect one.
Hey I'm the mother of an autistic/retarded child, I think I know you..
you're the one clammoring for laws that would make sure all children
like my son are born.
You're also part of a taxpayer base that considers funding that would
educate my child to the best of HIS ability to not be your problem.
Special ed ? if it's going to be anymore more costly than finding
a back room at the school to shove all the little uneducatable little
defectives in, you don't want to know about it.
I see your face in social policies that encourage me to quit my job,
becoming a total drain on society in order to obtain adequate speech,
physical, occupational therapy for my child, because of social security
policy that states that a parental gross income of more than $776 per
month from all income sources renders my child ineligible for even
medicare assistance. Trying paying all your basic bills, plus the
non-insuranced covered fee's of providing these medical services
on $777 per month, or even double that.
I also see you in frustrating policies that would provide my son with a
full package of comprehensive need based services if the state took full
custody of him, but won't work with me or parents like me to merely
SUPPLEMENT,the supports we can provide in order to keep them at home.
I see your face at town meetings where proposals to place group homes
for retarded/autistic citzens in our town's neighborhoods are repeatedly
voted down.
It seems our "special kids" are only special, and of concern to many
till they are safely in the delivery room...after that they and the
overwhelmed families trying to rear them are on their own.
Jean
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <marks-22039...@ip-55-027.sna.primenet.com>
ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>> ma...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>> >Not doable at this period in time. There are even questions
>> >about frozen sperm viability and chromosome damage.
>>
>> too long ago, and more will be forthcoming.
>
eggs>could not be frozen.
very new...just a month or two ago I think. The
mom had frozen the combined egg and sperm...I
think.... ...something like eight
years prior to use of it. Sorry, I don't really
follow this kind of thing much.
-----------------
>Nonetheless, the perception among single women is that they get
nervous at>the age of 30. That's certainly been my experience. Most
technology.>I certainly don't.
Oh goodness! Get into the 21st century Mark. In fact,
if I were to have a child today, I'd want to freeze it's
umbilical cord as well....
-----------------
>
>Perhaps it's a good moment to pause and consider how important these
>choices really _aren't_ to a majority of people: Most people
>aren't interested in exercising abortion rights. Most certainly
>don't want crack babies as a consequence of these so called rights.
>Most don't want to freeze their sperm or eggs.
---------
It depends. I have a friend who's just barely into
her twenties....who has had cancer...she's
had two surgeries, and the doctor has told her they
will remove her uterus next go around, if she does
not remain in remission. She is going to have
a child now... freezing her eggs was something she
had also considered.
------------------
>
>I'm as much a technocrat as anyone, Marg. But I'm also realistic
>enough to acknowledge that these toys... aren't all that important
>in life. Most people don't trust that technology and to have
>someone else hold their eggs and sperm. That's just the way
>people seem to be.
-----------
Those who consideer these things very much want
to procreate at some time. What it provides for
women, is the ability to do so as long as they
like....just like men. To say people don't trust
the technology is plain silly.
---------------
>
>> >You are free to disagree Lefty. Like I keep telling you: If women
>> >such as this can't _handle_ equality, that's not MY problem.
>>
>> They CAN and DO.
>
>Then stop defending alimony and asking for free daycare. Men
certainly>don't need these things.
---------
Sure they do, WHEN they stay at home and do the
sacrifice shuffle, and when they have children who
need daycare and qualify.
-----------
>
>Asking for equality while getting paid by daddy to look after their
>own home doesn't convince me that they are serious. Sorry.
---------
Be sorry all you like; it won't change the nature
of alimony from a contractual bargain to what you see
as patriarchy.
--------------
>
>If you want equality, little teenager, you have to pay for the gas
>before you get the car keys. :-)
--------------
Indeed, but you don't have to pay for someone else
to ride.
--------------
>
>> >It's YOUR movement's problem. Let's continue:
>>
>> What problem?
>
>That even after 30 years of practically having equality HANDED to you,
>that society is still as sexist as ever. That... many people are
>beginning to think so little of feminism... that most women
>have abandoned the label.
----------
Oh, well no one expects the kind of "rape culture" we
have to end overnight, Mark; men are very used to being
sexist and trying to put women down at every turn to
maintain their superior status. It's been an ongoing
battle that required one extra thing to win. We now
have the third thing that was needed....the right to
control our own bodies. We already forced you to give
up control of our property and our right to vote. Once
we took back the most fundamental right...the right to
our own bodies....it's all downhill from there. Our
daughters don't really talk all that much about feminism
because they use the courts....when equality doesn't
happen; it's an expectation.
----------------------------
>
>That's not my problem at all. In fact, it's a rather wonderful
>period to live in.
>
>Feminism is intellectually and politically bankrupt. Go ahead,
>keep sneaking in through the back door. Isn't that where you belong?
:-)>(It's also the servants entrance.)
Oh really? Tell that to all the men who have
snuck their own legislation in thru the back
door; it's tried and true, and one great way
to get by the sexist fathers.
-----------------------------
>
>> >Ever hear of the vote, Lefty?
>>
>> Yes...ever hear of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS....?
>
>Yes. 209 says I have them. I know how much it angers you that
>white males will actually get treated like human beings.
---------
:] You mean like biased folks who want to CONTINUE
their own superior status?
-----------
>
>Learn to live with it. More of the same is coming down the road...
We will see.
>
>> >If so-called "rights" and "entitlements" can be voted and created
>> >through a series of judicial appointments and legislation...
>> >
>> >THEY CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AWAY.
>>
>> Who's going to DO THAT?
>
>The same people who happily leave the workplace to have daddy look
>after them.
-----------
Nah...Mark you are so confused between civil
rights and social choices you don't know which
way is up.
-------------
>
>> >Quite frankly, I rather LIKE the idea of a woman's absolute right
>> >to gestate crack babies. Please feel free to wear it around your
>> >movement's neck... like an albatross.
>> >
>> The right to gestate or not gestate, will not
>> depend on the quality of the fetus, only the will
>> of the one carrying it and it's life.
>
>This jives with your position that women are goddesses who determine
>whether a fetus deserves life or not and then thrusts it upon men
>and society.
----------
When men gestate, they will have the same right. There's
simply nothing you can DO short of TRYING to take away,
that which has become impossible for you to regulate.
-----------------
>
>Which is fine... with me. As more crack babies are thrust upon us
>(and the taxpayers), even women will come to see that position
>as selfish and irresponsible.
>
>There are women right now arguing against you. Even those who, under
>ordinary circumstances... aren't exactly on my wavelength.
>
>Thank you so much.
>
>Keep it up.
>
>Mark
----------
On this NG, what would you say the ratio is as between
men and women? Do as many women as men use the net?
And, why on earth would you expect the women who post
here to be mostly feminist?
Lefty