Calling for a Boycott of the fundamentalist State of South Dakota

Nope

Or, rather, I'm very ACCEPTING.

Accepting, however, is exactly the issue here...

That would be a resounding no. But educating oneself is not nearly as satisfying as a good rant.

Tal Magnum,

Indeed, it's a real measure of how much liberty is being lost in this country, that the politicians of the far religious right, supported only by a minority of Americans, have managed to seize as much power as they have.

If we had an actual democracy the far right could not be more than a minority government and likely could not have seized power with rigged elections in the first place.

The Republican Party has opposed states' rights at every level whenever a state tries to create a regulation or a freedom that they disapprove of; two recent examples are organic food labelling (some states stricter) and medical marijuana (some states more lenient) as you know.

We can assume that this is a test case for overruling the democratic will of those blue (and red) states who are willing to permit abortion in exceptional cases or in all cases in the first trimester.

An attempt of this sort was made a while ago in Idaho, but Governor Andrus vetoed it, in part because his religion (Latter-Day Saint) permits rape victims to seek an abortion if they feel it is right.

Something's bizarre about a right wing political position when even IDAHO is to the left of it!!

I wish you well.

I recently found some real liberty in an old jacket pocket, but I lost it again.....
I'm cleaning my couch tomorrow, maybe it'll turn up between the cushions.....

Careful, you might find Jimmy Hoffa in those couch cushions!

BTW, what does real liberty look like?

Judical Act of 1791 nuff said

But then, Fundamentalist hate the Judicary Act of 1791

Tal

Any law that forces a woman to carry the child of a Rapist is evil, wrong, insane, draconian, and just stupid. How dare the fundamentalist force a Rape victom to live over and over and over the crime committed against her. How dare the Fundamentalist force a Rape Victom to carry an object that will remind her of the evil rapist.

"Be Well"

I'm sure that now they have a stacked court they'll "flip-flop" on this one as they have on many issues.

Magnum Serpentine wrote,
"Any law that forces a woman to carry the child of a Rapist is evil, wrong, insane, draconian, and just stupid. How dare the fundamentalist force a Rape victom to live over and over and over the crime committed against her. How dare the Fundamentalist force a Rape Victom to carry an object that will remind her of the evil rapist."

Tal,

Yes, it's so evil it is hard to imagine. I've had fundamentalists tell me I was a sinner for being a cancer patient, or for being a victim of certain kinds of crime. I think that sometimes in their demented minds the rape victim is not actually innocent. Fortunately, I have mostly recovered from these things and gotten far away from the fundies. But I could only do it when I refused to believe a word they said.

They often really believe coercion and deception are effective ways to get someone to believe as they do. I've often wondered what this says about their own minds, as it suggests they are not interested in anything empirical. This reminds me, too, of the tendency of fundamentalists to prefer harsh physical discipline for children. Perhaps fundamentalisms are always psychosis, or narcissism, and history is likely to repeat itself if they are not contained somehow. However, they seem to be at one end of a continuum of coercive and narcissistic thinking that many people buy into to some degree. I've come to think of this as a developmental problem being passed off as religion or politics.

I wish you well.

Forgetting the whole MAP/rape kit thing for a second...it's nice to see the Goreans coming out strong in earth politics. You guys could settle this whole thing if you'd just send us some of that potion that you give your slaves and Free Women to keep them from getting knocked up.

Oh, and that "object" you keep referring to-I'm not sure what the Gorean word for it is-but here on earth we call it an innocent child. I know, I know, it's easier to hate when you objectify and dehumanize, but it's true.

Speaking of rape...tell me again what you Goreans do to our earth women after you've kidnapped them?

-Kiamat Dusk

I'm assuming you mean of 1789, since there was no act of 1791... No, not enough said. It doesn't change the fact that the SC doesn't pass laws. Do you have the faintest notion of how our legal system actually works, Magnum?

Go back and re-read your beloved act. Pay particular attention to, oh... sections 13-17, for a start, and then anything after about 22. The powers of the Supreme Court are *clearly* spelled out, and the ability to make laws is NOT one of their powers. Period.

The supreme court cannot make laws, according to the provisions of the act you yourself hold up in arguement against me. There really isn't any debate here, Magnum. The supreme court is given appellete power, power to act in certain quasi-international matters, some civil powers, etc. The supreme court is just like any other court, effectively, in that regard. It decides how to interperate existing laws, it doesn't make new ones.

Until you are willing to bitch slap me down with your holy writ, section by section, line by line, or come up with one of these other acts you vaugley mention that says "The Supreme Court, and not the legislature, is now invested with the ability to make laws" don't bother to tell me it's 'enough said' again. I understand it far better than you by all evidence presented here.

Your current logic makes as much sense as saying that having a gun permit gives a person the right to kill people, and is just as wrong.

Do not believe this sleen's lies, Magnum. On Earth we call that object a fetus.

While the Gorean lifestyle is certainly not for me, I am glad I can seperate role-play from real life.

I kill humans in World of Warcraft. Does that somehow make me a killer in real life too?

More like Flame Fanning.

But then, fundamentalists hate any part of democracy they can't ignore or weasel their way through.

Yup

But then, activists hate any part of democracy that they can't ignore or legislate away.

Umm, no. Activists (of all ideological stripes) work within the system to change how it works. Fundamentalists (of all ideological stripes) refuse to recognize things they don't like.

Nonsense.

Roe V Wade, anyone?

Well, that's a good rebuttal. Excellent logic there, can't argue with that. With those kind of debating skills I don't know how I could ever possibly argue with you.

Again:

Roe V. Wade, anyone?

You might not like the system, Reitsuki --but Roe V. Wade is within the system.

Umm, OK. Bringing an historical event into the discussion without explanation or enunciation is as silly as just shouting "Nonsense" at the top of your lungs. How does that relate to what we wrote about activists and fundamentalists? You might want to explain your point with more than two or three words, since I left my mindreading skills in my other pants.

I've argued this point before. I disdain dredging up past shit if I can help it. But, very well.



See, that's very much open for debate.

It's within the system NOW, by virtue of existing unchallenged for far too long. Really, Roe V. Wade was a circumvention of the system - It should have been handled as a constitutional ammendment. However, it's not always easy to get an ammendment through, so the SCOTUS pulled the penumbra arguement out of their ass to create the same effect as a constitutional ammendment, but without going through the proper, already existing, channels. Roe V. Wade is the first *major* example of the SCOTUS attempting to make law, which is outside of their jurisdiction in the normal course of events.

Once again, before anyone tries to invent arguments I didn't say - I'm not opposed to the effect of Roe V. Wade. I'm opposed to how it was implimented.