Husband's Permission Required to have Tubes Tied - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 12-05-2003, 09:49 AM
Beginner
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

I know how it is drawn legally. My comment was in relation to how people within a society reach that conclusion.

However, with Roe v. Wade in effect, the line can only be drawn so far back. From what i remember when I read the decision, there is no room for a state legisltaure to pass a law stating viability begins at conception.



Roe v Wade was more or less changed through Planned Parenthood v Casey. ROe gave a trimester system; PP v Casey gives a "viability" standard. With PP, a state could, concievably, put any number of rules into effect to prevent abortions, including putting the viability date extremely early in the pregnancy (and potentially, even up to conception). PA's viability date is very early, something like 5 weeks into the pregnancy (something like 40 days). After that, the state's laws for medical abortions, etc, come into play. I'm not sure if there is a state that has an earlier date, but it is legally possible.



I think that, generally speaking, a state wouldn't set it at conception because even though the pro life (or anti-choice) organizations make the most noise, the majority of constituents tend to be pro choice.



it's an interesting case, Casey. one of my favorites to study (and it's relatives). it really did change the face of the laws in most states, making it easier for states to prevent 'on demand' abortions by setting early dates and other means such as 24 and 48 hr waiting periods, parental consent for minors, father's/grandparents "rights" via consent or injunctions, and a myriad of other laws.



and reproductive rights is such an amazing and intense process to study. Eugenics laws of the late 1800s and early 1900s have a great influence and affect on modern laws, and our (cultural) fears of repeating such atrocities (or even being associated with the policies that dominated and formulated much of fascist ideology of the early 1900s), clearly have strong influence in our modern legal developments.



what is difficult is to decern whose bodies belong to whom, and when the state has an interest in that individual's body--regardless of whether it is the abortion issue or a myriad of consent laws.



Sorry again for being off topic. These topics are so highly charged and intertwined (particularly from the legal mindset) that they are hard to parcel out.
zoebird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 12-05-2003, 11:19 AM
Beginner
 
Thalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Before anyone else pops too much of a gasket, some doctors require wives to sign before their husbands get a vasectomy.

That makes me pop a gasket!!!!!
Thalia is offline  
#63 Old 12-05-2003, 11:32 AM
Banned
 
cactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 416
Yea there are definitely many issues all closely tied to each other. For example, if someone refused to perform an operation of any kind for me, I would just hop on a plane and go to another country where that is allowed. I can afford to say screw you and your laws, and go somewhere else -- but many people cannot afford to do that, and so when you speak of issues like this, you have to really note that the laws are really binding only upon the poor, mainly the working poor.



What we need in this country is a real ban on religious tax-deductible non-profits (specifically houses of worship such as synagogues, mosques and churches that fall under a very specific IRS category already) to engage in political speech. Not just candidates but all political speech. You want tax-deductible status, then you must shut your trap about abortion and similar issues.



What we have now is really a loophole. Yea churches cannot talk for or against a specific candidate (although they're fighting mighty hard to get that absurd right) but they can speak against positions of a candidate, like abortion, etc. There is an overwhelming public interest here that should override the right to free speech of an organization. Which in turn gets into the point of since when and why is right to free speech granted to corporations anyway (and churches are corporations, just non-profit tax-deductible ones).



Once religion is out of the legal sphere, only then can we really have a meaningful debate about these issues.
cactus is offline  
#64 Old 12-05-2003, 12:05 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus View Post

What we need in this country is a real ban on religious tax-deductible non-profits (specifically houses of worship such as synagogues, mosques and churches that fall under a very specific IRS category already) to engage in political speech. Not just candidates but all political speech. You want tax-deductible status, then you must shut your trap about abortion and similar issues.





You just don't want to face the reality that the majority disagrees with you on most issues, religious or not.

Discussing issues in a moral/religious context is not political speech, and should not be judged as such.

What you are proposing would have restricted African-American churches from being central to the civil rights movement.

Fortunately, views like yours are such a minority that no one needs to be concerned about them having any chance in gaining acceptance.
Tame is offline  
#65 Old 12-05-2003, 12:22 PM
Banned
 
cactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 416
That some of my views are not necessarily shared by the majority speaks nothing to the validity of those views. I need not remind you that veganism is a minority view too ;-)



The question is whether these institutions should be able to accept tax-deductible donations. I would suggest that the fact that churches hold so much power over the black communities is something that is a tremendous setback for those communities. There was a time that religion ruled the earth, and that time was called the dark ages. There is good reason for that.
cactus is offline  
#66 Old 12-05-2003, 12:40 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus View Post

The question is whether these institutions should be able to accept tax-deductible donations. I would suggest that the fact that churches hold so much power over the black communities is something that is a tremendous setback for those communities. There was a time that religion ruled the earth, and that time was called the dark ages. There is good reason for that.



The "Dark Ages" refer to a specific time period in Europe, and of course, Europe hardly constitutes the earth.



As long as religious institutions do not back a specific candidate, they have the right, regardless of their tax status, to hold a position on moral issues. Are you suggesting that "activists" be given the right to tell churches what they can/cannot discuss?

You can "suggest" whatever you want, but those of us in the black community will handle our business without any input from "activists" like you.



Also, as far as holding a minority view...sometimes you are in the minority because you are just wrong. It happens a lot.

Veganism is a minority view which, of course, doesn't bother me because I disagree with it a lot.
Tame is offline  
#67 Old 12-05-2003, 02:27 PM
Banned
 
cactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 416
If it weren't for the churches, abortion debate would be far different here. Hell, we might actually have a debate and make some progress. Sigh.



What is the difference between backing/opposing a candidate and supporting/attacking the viewpoints of the candidate? This is a loophole in the law that we ought to patch.
cactus is offline  
#68 Old 12-05-2003, 02:44 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus View Post

If it weren't for the churches, abortion debate would be far different here. Hell, we might actually have a debate and make some progress. Sigh.



What is the difference between backing/opposing a candidate and supporting/attacking the viewpoints of the candidate? This is a loophole in the law that we ought to patch.



I don't think there is much of one, which is why I don't have a problem with churches and chuch leaders endorsing candidates. Or to put it another way, why should trade unions, NOW, the NAACP, the NRA and the Sierra Club get to endorse candidates, but not the Quaker Meeting House down the street?



I was also not aware that religious groups cannot endorse candidates.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#69 Old 12-05-2003, 03:08 PM
Banned
 
cactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 416
There is a difference between a non-profit corporation and a non-profit tax deductible corporation. If you are tax-deductible (ie donations can be written off for taxes by donors), you cannot endorse candidates. The groups you mention are non-profit but non-tax-deductible.
cactus is offline  
#70 Old 12-05-2003, 09:37 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus View Post

What is the difference between backing/opposing a candidate and supporting/attacking the viewpoints of the candidate? This is a loophole in the law that we ought to patch.



Big difference. Unless you want to disallow the free discussion of issues within a moral realm. Odd position for an "activist".



I take that back. It isn't an odd position for your type of "activist". You only want a free discussion of what you agree with, nothing else. I mean, if a church believes life begins at conception, they should just drop that part of their religion, right?
Tame is offline  
#71 Old 12-05-2003, 10:23 PM
Banned
 
cactus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 416
Tame, I have said this before, and I will say it again. If you wish to have a discussion, then quit the personal attacks. Otherwise, I will simply ignore your posts including this one.



Speaking of which, isn't there an ignore function/hack for vBulletin? That would be somewhat useful.
cactus is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off