next »

[Najataagihe]

Human beings have no particular right to survive.

There is no such thing as a Right to Survive.

Survival is combination of chance and ability.

Ability will increase your chances of survival for a longer period of time, but no one in the history of Man has yet succeeded.


 

[Najataagihe]

I also dispute your concept of human beings as being "special".

Indisputably the top of the land-based food chain.

That makes them "special."

The overwhelming majority of the human race, including me and you, is an enormous, sprawling, ugly, selfish, mindless, destructive waste of space and resources, and the most terrible plague on an otherwise beautiful and innocent planet.

More like "Plague of the Moment."

If it were not for humans, some other enormous, sprawling, ugly, selfish, mindless, destructive waste of space and resources would be the most terrible plague on an otherwise beautiful and innocent planet.


By the way, the planet is not innocent.

It merely a chunk of rock.

The state of innocence requires the ability to be guilty and a chunk of rock is neither.


As far as "Nature" being harmonious and pure, that is true, but it is NOT idyllic.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to leave the protection of human herds and take a look for themselves.


You will soon become a top predator or dead.

 

[SensitiveJohn]

Ability will increase your chances of survival for a longer period of time, but no one in the history of Man has yet succeeded.

This is my greatest source of anxiety.

[Stretch Longarm]

Take out the word "legal" and you have the entire Truth Of The Matter.

Abortion is not the government's business.

Neither is religion, firearm ownership, marriage and a host of other activities wherein folks try to force their opinions on everybody else by using "the Law" as a weapon.

So are you saying that "the law" as it currently exists for abortion/religion/firearm ownership is wrong, because some people don't agree with it? Even though "the law"s are written to protect a portion of the population from having other's views forced on them?

It IS government's business...if there were no laws to separate church & state, this country would be awash in a shambles of McCarthyistic attacks and bigotry; if there were no government regulation of firearm ownership, we would see more of what's happening in Mexico; if there hadn't been R v W, then women, especially poor women, would suffer.

[Najataagihe]

This is my greatest source of anxiety.

Why?

Without your ability to recognize moving traffic as a deadly peril, you would have stepped off the sidewalk and been run over years ago.

That ability, among many others, has allowed you to survive as long as you have.


You have developed the abilities necessary to survive in your environment.

I see no cause for anxiety - other than dodging idiots who do not obey traffic laws.


 

[Najataagihe]

So are you saying that "the law" as it currently exists for abortion/religion/firearm ownership is wrong, because some people don't agree with it?

No, not at all.

I am saying the role of the federal government is to pass laws that operate only on an inter-state level.

State laws should only deal with matters that occur on an intra-county/parish level.

County laws should only deal with matters on an inter-city level.

City laws should only deal with matters on an inter-neighborhood level.

Neighborhood laws should only deal with matters affecting the neighborhood, not the personal matters of its citizens.


Any matter that operates on an individual level that affects no one but the individual and his immediate family unit is not within the government's purview.

Abortion, religion, firearms possession, marriage, ethnicity, education and many other issues are individual matters that should never have been addressed by a governing body.


The fact that it not only has been addressed and codified, but deemed a legitimate function of government, is a statement to the sad state of affairs of the education and docile acceptance of tyranny by our citizenry.

The whole idea of decentralized government is to retain the flexibility in societal norms necessary to allow widely varied social groups to retain their identity while providing a framework within which they can comfortably co-exist.

Even though "the law"s  are written to protect a portion of the population from having other's views forced on them?

Actually, the entire Constitution is a short list of what the government is allowed to do – with vehement restrictions on interfering with an individual’s right to pursue happiness.

The protection of individuals from having the views of others forced upon them is one of the foundations of that document.

It IS government's business...if there were no laws to separate church & state, this country would be awash in a shambles of McCarthyistic attacks and bigotry;

First, there is no clause in the Constitution that prohibits all interactions between church and state.

The only mention of the subject is a mandate upon Congress that it shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a national religion.

There is no mandate to keep church and state separate, just a restriction prohibiting the state from establishing a religion and forcing everyone to observe it.


Second, no amount of legislation will ever control what happens inside a person’s mind.

Don’t look now, but “McCarthyistic attacks and bigotry” are extant all around you.


Today’s largest “Bigotry Target of the New Century” is anyone of the Muslim faith.

It doesn’t matter that only a small percentage of Muslims pervert their faith to justify violent actions, ALL Muslims are last decade’s “THEM”.


The second largest “Bigotry Target of the New Century” seems to be anyone of Hispanic descent.

It doesn’t matter that only a percentage of Hispanics are in the county illegally, ALL Hispanics are this decade’s “THEM”.


The point, in case anyone missed it, is that you cannot regulate thoughts and bigotry is merely the result of the thought processes (or lack thereof) of short-sighted, opinionated jackasses.

if there were no government regulation of firearm ownership, we would see more of what's happening in Mexico;

Are you claiming there is no government regulation of firearm ownership in Mexico?

Or, are you claiming that government can effectively control an individual’s determination to commit violence?

You will find that neither is the case.

if there hadn't been R v W, then women, especially poor women, would suffer.

Again, Roe vs. Wade should never have even been considered.

Abortion is an individual choice that is no business of the government.


Also, the implication that poor women would suffer more than other women is irrelevant.

Individual wealth should not be a concern for governments in establishing policy.


Personally, I disapprove of the use of abortion merely as a primary means of convenient birth control for those too lackadaisical in their approach to family planning.

However, I also consider abortion in those circumstances to be of huge benefit to society as it removes more “stupid” DNA from the gene pool.


So, while I would not approve of it as a personal choice for me, I would not try to impeded anyone else from doing so, because it is none of my damned business what someone else chooses for themselves!

Same goes for the federal government – “Nunya”.


 

[Stretch Longarm]

Wow, I don't know why your quote came out in such huge font! - makes it look like I was angry or something, which isn't the case...So, sorry for that.

As to your statements,

I am saying the role of the federal government is to pass laws that operate only on an inter-state level.

This opinion is not addressing the role of the federal government to assure equal rights for all citizens. Period. I see that as flawed logic that would leave huge holes in the interpretation of human rights laws.

Any matter that operates on an individual level that affects no one but the individual and his immediate family unit is not within the government's purview. Abortion, religion, firearms possession, marriage, ethnicity, education and many other issues are individual matters that should never have been addressed by a governing body.

Seriously? Have you ever studied history? Any one of those issues affect far more than the individual. Far more.

The fact that it not only has been addressed and codified, but deemed a legitimate function of government, is a statement to the sad state of affairs of the education and docile acceptance of tyranny by our citizenry.

The whole idea of decentralized government is to retain the flexibility in societal norms necessary to allow widely varied social groups to retain their identity while providing a framework within which they can comfortably co-exist.

So bigots can coexist with people they would be free to hate and repress? So the wealthy could prey upon the masses? So sexual predators could prey upon children? So unskilled practitioners could perform surgery or prescribe damaging medications? So religious zealots could hound and demean others who don't share their views?

You are painting a picture of a dangerous atmosphere in a non-unified country with that view. I can understand concern about "docile acceptance of tyranny", but that is not especially a result of government, it's a result of wealth dominating over not only the masses, but over the government as well.

Actually, the entire Constitution is a short list of what the government is allowed to do – with vehement restrictions on interfering with an individual’s right to pursue happiness.

The protection of individuals from having the views of others forced upon them is one of the foundations of that document.

While everyone has the right to pursue happiness, there are limits, because uncheck, they could negatively interfere with other's rights to happiness. I don't even need to show an example of how ridiculous an extreme version of this thought could be. People don't live in a vacuum, they live in communities, cities, town, States, countries, the world. Of course there needs to be oversight in the form of governance.

The point, in case anyone missed it, is that you cannot regulate thoughts and bigotry is merely the result of the thought processes (or lack thereof) of short-sighted, opinionated jackasses.

I don't remember suggesting thought control, merely control of action or deed that interferes with other's rights to pursuit of happiness. History has shown us that education is the best form of bigotry control - in general - admittedly there are a**holes everywhere - so through regulation and governance, bigotry can become repressed via social norms, education, etc.

Are you claiming there is no government regulation of firearm ownership in Mexico?

Or, are you claiming that government can effectively control an individual’s determination to commit violence?

You will find that neither is the case.

I'm suggesting neither - only that unregulated, there would be even MORE gun violence in this country (which has an astonishing (+/-) 30,000 firearm related deaths, 75,000 firearm related woundings each year) - and that is sad.

Again, Roe vs. Wade should never have even been considered.

Abortion is an individual choice that is no business of the government.

Your second sentence negates the first sentence.

[sly fox]

back to original topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/virginia-senate-passes-revised-ultrasound-bill.html?ref=us

. . . Changing course after an unwelcome national uproar, the Virginia Senate adopted a revised bill on Tuesday that still requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on women before they have an abortion, but also says that women cannot be forced to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound.

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,” and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

The furor has already had an effect in other states considering ultrasound mandates, including Alabama and Idaho, with lawmakers seeking to avoid accusations that they are subjecting women to an unwanted, invasive procedure . . .

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

The choice of scanning techniques should “be the choice of the mother,” the sponsor, Senator Clay Scofield, a Republican, said in a television interview on Monday in Huntsville. “If she does not want a vaginal transducer she does not have to have it.”

In Idaho, senators introducing a similar ultrasound bill added language on Monday requiring use of “whichever method the physician and patient agree is best under the circumstances.”

The choice is between vaginal ultrasounds, which involve placing a probe inside the body, or the more familiar abdominal procedure, done externally. Through most of the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, medical experts say, only the invasive procedure can provide a clear image of the tiny fetus or an audible record of the heartbeat, and most abortions occur within this period.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

In Alabama, the Virginia furor fanned new controversy over a proposal in the Legislature, prompting a swift reaction from voters and the author of the bill, which is called the “Right to Know and See Act.”

Even if it is amended to offer a choice of probes, the bill would contain some of the country’s strongest pre-abortion mandates . . .

In Mississippi, a bill working its way through committee requires an ultrasound that provides an image of high quality, which cannot be achieved with abdominal procedures in the initial months of pregnancy. The woman must be offered a chance to see the image and hear the fetal heartbeat. She cannot avoid hearing a description of the sonogram unless, among other things, she is a victim of sexual assault or incest or the fetus is medically compromised.

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a law with some of the country’s strongest provisions. It would require vaginal probes in many cases, display of the scanning screen to the patient and a printout of the image for inclusion in the patient’s medical records. It would also impose a 24-hour waiting period between ultrasound and abortion that critics say would be a burden for some women. . . .