By the way, I looked. It's still active, only needs three more states, never say never.
Loathe wrote: > Change that so that we can keep the gender mix up of the current > military (no women in combat arms jobs) and I think you'd have an easier > time getting it passed. > > Dana wrote: >> an amendment will not be proposed any time soon, since the equal >> rights amendment shamefully failed >> >> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The amendment process is there for things that the framers didn't >>> consider. Without an amendment I don't think that the federal >>> government should be involved on any level. >>> >>> Dana wrote: >>>> But does the search need to be physical? I would feel violated if I >>>> had to go to court to explain why I want an abortion. Personally. It's >>>> something the writers of the constitution did not consider because >>>> women just quietly took care of these things themselves at the time, >>>> and sometimes died over it. >>>> >>>> Note: I am not in favor of late-term abortion or any abortion really. >>>> I just feel that outlawing it is worse. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Secure from unreasonable search is how the amendment is worded and you >>>>> know that. >>>>> >>>>> Removed I mean that if possible an attempt should still be made to >>>>> salvage the babies life, it's incredible how young a premature child can >>>>> survive today, and three to four months in not unusual anymore. >>>>> >>>>> I still say that these standards need to be set, that abortions do need >>>>> to be available, that they should be set by the medical community at the >>>>> state level. >>>>> >>>>> Dana wrote: >>>>>> don't think I understand this answer (removed?) and I don't think >>>>>> first trimester is necessarily the right place to draw your line. But >>>>>> I don't want to do the research to argue the point. There is a line, >>>>>> and it is somewhere well before the third trimester and probably not >>>>>> *too* far from the end of the first, right? Leave it at that for the >>>>>> purposes of this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> But taking a step back, why would it be a security of the person issue >>>>>> in the second and not in the third? My answer is that it still is, but >>>>>> the baby's right to not be killed is more urgent and important than >>>>>> the mother's right not be messed with. I am not sure about yours. >>>>>> >>>>>> So in the third trimester, there is a legitimate reason for government >>>>>> -- to balance those competing rights if necessary -- except that when >>>>>> we have competing rights to stay alive, it is again not something >>>>>> anyone else should be deciding. The last point especially seems clear >>>>>> enough if your look at it from a libertarian point of view. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bottom line though is that this is indeed a question of being secure >>>>>> in one's person, both the mother's and the baby's. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> Only in the case that it is proven to be a health concern for the >>>>>>> mother, and then the baby should be removed from the mother if it's past >>>>>>> the 1st trimester. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dana wrote: >>>>>>>> you don't think that being told you can't have an abortion affects the >>>>>>>> security of a woman's person? I do disagree with you in that case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Take it further, I'm not talking about the right to privacy, I'm >>>>>>>>> talking >>>>>>>>> about the right to have an abortion. Privacy from government in my >>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>> is covered in the ability to be secure in your person from search and >>>>>>>>> seizure, to make sure no one is looking your windows or listening to >>>>>>>>> your conversations without a warrant, it's completely unrelated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only abortion argument I think that makes sense is at what point >>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>> the cells and blood become a human being. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Judah McAuley wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> It's also why there is an amendment process. >>>>>>>>>> To paraphrase a founding father when debating the wisdom of laying >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> the Bill of Rights: "If you go enumerating a list of rights that >>>>>>>>>> people have, some dumb ass in the future is going think we meant >>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>> are the *only* ones they have." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the >>>>>>>>>> Constitution. That is because it falls under this quaint little >>>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>>> that the Founders had read up on called Natural Law. The Constitution >>>>>>>>>> lays out the limitations and powers of the Government, not of the >>>>>>>>>> people. I know what the 10th Amendment says and there are a whole lot >>>>>>>>>> of people seem to think that all rights not explicitly given to the >>>>>>>>>> Federal government get caught up in the nebulous net of "the State" >>>>>>>>>> and that few if any filter down to the individual. Well fuck that >>>>>>>>>> noise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Judah >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:272400 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
