Re: Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court
On May 23, 2005, at 6:05 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: John D. Giorgis wrote: In light of our recent abortion discussion, I'm wondering what some of the Brin-L'ers here think of the NH law requiring that parents of a minor be notified 48 hours before an abortion.Should this law contain an exception if the health of the minor is at risk? Perhaps not, but there should be an exception if the father of the fetus is a family member (incest/rape). The intersection of the subjects of abortion and incest is a pretty sick neighborhood. [...] Yes -- once again there are exceptions which suggest that laws, which can't be created in such a way as to take into account all exceptions, can in enough circumstances cause sufficient suffering to lead to the conclusion that it would be best to eliminate the law in question rather than rewrite it. Or, better still, not make the law in the first place. There's a hell of a lot of heavy-handed moral authoritarianism in some US laws. Ludicrous penalties for pot possession come immediately to mind. We get insipid commercials with young adults prating about how drugs destroyed someone's future -- the self-righteous asses who make these ads refuse to admit that it's the *penalty* under *law* that destroys the future of a drug user, not the drug itself. I sense a similar trend with abortion legislation. The best, the very best course of action to take is to keep the legislators the fuck out of the gynecologists' offices entirely. Any step toward regulation is likely to inflate rapidly and hand down endless and pointless misery on the heads of complete innocents. I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong. It's being forced under wraps, I think. That makes it *more* dangerous and *more* toxic. The consideration of this subject causes some internal turmoil for me. On one hand I feel that kids like those I knew should never have been born. On the other, I feel some guilt because I am condoning the killing of innocents. And guilt again because I feel that those kids were something less than human in ways that I recognise in every other person I have known. And it is these very thorny issues that I simply cannot accept are reconcilable with something so facile as judicial fiat. A simple definition of human does not exist, human rights are extremely plastic terms of convenience -- nothing more -- and one man's murder is another man's abortion of a child of incest. There is no way that any kind of law can ever be written to deal with these kinds of issues. Which suggests to me that trying to develop such a law is an exercise in hubris and, ultimately, futility. While we're at it let's make it illegal to be stupid. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes -- once again there are exceptions which suggest that laws, which can't be created in such a way as to take into account all exceptions, can in enough circumstances cause sufficient suffering to lead to the conclusion that it would be best to eliminate the law in question rather than rewrite it. Or, better still, not make the law in the first place. That's what judges used to be for, until the feds started making them toe some sort of line. I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong. It's being forced under wraps, I think. That makes it *more* dangerous and *more* toxic. I think it used to be much further under wraps in midcentury than it is now. Today's willingness to speak up about such things has helped enormously. The consideration of this subject causes some internal turmoil for me. On one hand I feel that kids like those I knew should never have been born. On the other, I feel some guilt because I am condoning the killing of innocents. And guilt again because I feel that those kids were something less than human in ways that I recognise in every other person I have known. This reminds me of something written at then end of an essay back in the 1930s - Dion Fortune was trying to understand why she was suddenly seeing young people who fit that description among her social circles. Her tentative verdict on the kids - that they were not fully human, but rather some sort of elemental. She added for what it's worth ... of the ones [I forget how many she said] whose circumstances of conception I know, their mothers were drunk at the time. Aha! Run the ago of the kids against the start of Prohibition and the light dawns. Fetal alcohol syndrome. I wonder if that was going on here, as well? And it is these very thorny issues that I simply cannot accept are reconcilable with something so facile as judicial fiat. A simple definition of human does not exist, human rights are extremely plastic terms of convenience -- nothing more -- and one man's murder is another man's abortion of a child of incest. Man's?!?!?!?! There is no way that any kind of law can ever be written to deal with these kinds of issues. There is, but it can't deal in absolutes and excluded middles. Just my $0.02 Pat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court
On May 24, 2005, at 1:13 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes -- once again there are exceptions which suggest that laws, which can't be created in such a way as to take into account all exceptions, can in enough circumstances cause sufficient suffering to lead to the conclusion that it would be best to eliminate the law in question rather than rewrite it. Or, better still, not make the law in the first place. That's what judges used to be for, until the feds started making them toe some sort of line. Heh heh. Is that really so new, though? The toe the line part I mean. I haven't been actively conscious of Supreme Court and other nominees for more than about a quarter century, and based on that I can't really judge history's facts, of course. I would be very surprised, however, to learn that this is a comparatively recent trend. [Robert here] I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong. It's being forced under wraps, I think. That makes it *more* dangerous and *more* toxic. I think it used to be much further under wraps in midcentury than it is now. Today's willingness to speak up about such things has helped enormously. Well, except in cases where false accusations are made and the innocent are pilloried, or cases where -- if there's a risk a kid might talk -- murder is done to keep witnesses silent. The whole issue is just ugly and ... well, horrible. Though on reflection, yeah, it does seem like there's more willingness to investigate, to prosecute, to attempt to address pain and heal minds. That's definitely an improvement. And it is these very thorny issues that I simply cannot accept are reconcilable with something so facile as judicial fiat. A simple definition of human does not exist, human rights are extremely plastic terms of convenience -- nothing more -- and one man's murder is another man's abortion of a child of incest. Man's?!?!?!?! Or woman's, yes. I'm kind of a stickler about some things. I know English can be seen as inherently sexist in dealing with impersonal pronouns, but that's the way the language is constructed. So if the alternative is either to use a grammatically incorrect word (their or the ghastly hir in place of his, f'rinstance), or a tortuous formulation that is inclusive but too wordy (his/her), I'll probably go with the impersonal pronoun. Surely you know I was paraphrasing the old saw One man's meat... There is no way that any kind of law can ever be written to deal with these kinds of issues. There is, but it can't deal in absolutes and excluded middles. Right -- I think that's what I was suggesting. It can't be inclusive, it can't handle exceptions, and it would -- I think -- exacerbate suffering. Not much of an argument in favor of trying to produce any such law. :\ -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court
In light of our recent abortion discussion, I'm wondering what some of the Brin-L'ers here think of the NH law requiring that parents of a minor be notified 48 hours before an abortion.Should this law contain an exception if the health of the minor is at risk? Currently, our national abortion jurisprudence says that it should. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/23/scotus.abortions.ap/index.html JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court
At 06:41 PM Monday 5/23/2005, John D. Giorgis wrote: In light of our recent abortion discussion, I'm wondering what some of the Brin-L'ers here think of the NH law requiring that parents of a minor be notified 48 hours before an abortion.Should this law contain an exception if the health of the minor is at risk? Currently, our national abortion jurisprudence says that it should. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/23/scotus.abortions.ap/index.html And as long as health includes mental health, in practice any such law is invalidated, as a mental health type diagnosis can be based upon the opinion of one professional without any hard evidence from lab tests, etc., which is why some have the opinion that those who make such determinations do not and will not restrictions of any sort on abortions, thus they (the first group) say that they (the second group) defend all abortions. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court
John D. Giorgis wrote: In light of our recent abortion discussion, I'm wondering what some of the Brin-L'ers here think of the NH law requiring that parents of a minor be notified 48 hours before an abortion.Should this law contain an exception if the health of the minor is at risk? Perhaps not, but there should be an exception if the father of the fetus is a family member (incest/rape). The intersection of the subjects of abortion and incest is a pretty sick neighborhood. When I was a teen a family (with 3 kids) moved in across the street from us. When it was revealed that the Father had gotten the daughter (12) preggers no one was surprised since it was commonly known that the daughter was doing her younger brothers. (These kids openly talked about this with sickening frequency. And I doubt you could have found a pubic hair between the three of them) It was rumored that the parents were brother and sister. It was pretty obvious the rumor started because all three kids were complete and utter morons, not retarded actually (At least I don't think so), but so completely emptyheaded and oblivious and compliant that they would do pretty much anything someone told them to do. Seriously, I do not think these kids could ever forsee the outcome of their actions. The wierd thing is, these kids were absolute innocents. I don't think any of them had the slightest glimmer of evil in them. They were kind of like talking cartoon animals in human bodies. And they are likely dead or imprisoned. I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong. The consideration of this subject causes some internal turmoil for me. On one hand I feel that kids like those I knew should never have been born. On the other, I feel some guilt because I am condoning the killing of innocents. And guilt again because I feel that those kids were something less than human in ways that I recognise in every other person I have known. xponent The Lights Were On But No One Is Home Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
