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:272391 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
