"willfully ignorant"
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
shereads said:
Thank you Sher. To a certain portion of the people out there, changing your mind isn't something they respect you for, it's a sign you are wishy-washy. I am pleased that, that isn't the feeling my change of mind has engendered.
*HUGS*
-Colly
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
seaknight said:
Just a reminder Seaknight, as it seems to have slipped your mind. I'm still patiently waiting for you to support your assertion. I do have proof, I presented proof, I even provided research material Directly from USA Patriot for you.
-Colly
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Here we go...
Se, you should have scrolled back a month of two before you asked somebody in this group to provide documentation. How fast is your computer?
Makes popcorn, gets comfy, decides to sit back and watch this time. (Google was about to start charging me rent before realamerican packed his Heritage Foundation decoder ring and went to Vienna where they don't have the internet.)
G
Guest
Guest
Colleen Thomas said:
I never said that it didn't weaken it. I said it didn't override it. The patriot act allows for the FBI and other law enforcment agencies to hold back information that is gathered from the court system. The reason that it allows this is because during the ninties terrorism was dealt with as a criminal action, not a military action Information that is given to the courts during an investigation, cannot be shared with other agencies, because it then becomes part of a criminal investigation. However taps and warrants still require initial judical approval. After that the agency has discretion on what it deems necassary for the court to see. If the agency decides not to give it to the court there's nothing the court can do. It's already been tested here in MI. I will give you that it does weaken it. However to your early stance that it overrides, that's false. Probable cause must still be shown before taps and warrants can be issued.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
double
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
tax freedom day
Not that it matters....said the turtle in Neverending Story, but, April 11th, is the day you can begin working for yourself.
All the hours and days and weeks that you have worked so far this year, went to Uncle Sam.
that is about 30 percent of your entire income for the year and under the Bush administration, because of tax cuts, is the lowest amount in 37 years...but in my eyes, 20 percent more than I think is only less than obscene.
...not that it matters... amicus...
Not that it matters....said the turtle in Neverending Story, but, April 11th, is the day you can begin working for yourself.
All the hours and days and weeks that you have worked so far this year, went to Uncle Sam.
that is about 30 percent of your entire income for the year and under the Bush administration, because of tax cuts, is the lowest amount in 37 years...but in my eyes, 20 percent more than I think is only less than obscene.
...not that it matters... amicus...
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Amicus said,
Not that it matters....said the turtle in Neverending Story, but, April 11th, is the day you can begin working for yourself.
All the hours and days and weeks that you have worked so far this year, went to Uncle Sam.
that is about 30 percent of your entire income for the year and under the Bush administration, because of tax cuts, is the lowest amount in 37 years...but in my eyes, 20 percent more than I think is only less than obscene.
...not that it matters... amicus...
I prefer to say, think of the money spent till today as paying off the roads you drive on, and so on!
Think of every day after today as if you had to pay tolls on all existing roads--now privatized-- that suit you better.
No one says the tax burden is distributed fairly! Some multimillion dollar corps pay zero, as do many milionnaires.
I'd suspect you don't see any problem with this.
(By the way, it's the corps and millionaires *whom you want to free from most regulation and most taxes* who write much of these inequtable laws.)
I declare Jan 31 as "Amicus Day."
It marks the day, in the 'minimal law' ideal state of amicus, when the user fees for everything come into play: pay at the toilet; pay to drive on the road; pay your courier fee of 10 dollars for each letter you send; start your monthly installments for the private school, and so on.
start your monthly installments for extra 'security surveillance and services' in your gated community.
pay the levy of the Rand society for the 50ft. publically viewable marble statue in the (formerly) town square, now known as the Pepsi Square, where all seats except at Pepsi kiosks have been removed.
let's celebrate!
Not that it matters....said the turtle in Neverending Story, but, April 11th, is the day you can begin working for yourself.
All the hours and days and weeks that you have worked so far this year, went to Uncle Sam.
that is about 30 percent of your entire income for the year and under the Bush administration, because of tax cuts, is the lowest amount in 37 years...but in my eyes, 20 percent more than I think is only less than obscene.
...not that it matters... amicus...
I prefer to say, think of the money spent till today as paying off the roads you drive on, and so on!
Think of every day after today as if you had to pay tolls on all existing roads--now privatized-- that suit you better.
No one says the tax burden is distributed fairly! Some multimillion dollar corps pay zero, as do many milionnaires.
I'd suspect you don't see any problem with this.
(By the way, it's the corps and millionaires *whom you want to free from most regulation and most taxes* who write much of these inequtable laws.)
I declare Jan 31 as "Amicus Day."
It marks the day, in the 'minimal law' ideal state of amicus, when the user fees for everything come into play: pay at the toilet; pay to drive on the road; pay your courier fee of 10 dollars for each letter you send; start your monthly installments for the private school, and so on.
start your monthly installments for extra 'security surveillance and services' in your gated community.
pay the levy of the Rand society for the 50ft. publically viewable marble statue in the (formerly) town square, now known as the Pepsi Square, where all seats except at Pepsi kiosks have been removed.
let's celebrate!
Last edited:
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
Amicus, societies always have to be paid for.
History shows that the currencies involved are either money, or pain and blood.
If all I have to pay is money, it's cheap at twice the price.
History shows that the currencies involved are either money, or pain and blood.
If all I have to pay is money, it's cheap at twice the price.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Hey, graham, not too sure about that 'grow old too soon thing, as a young man, I knew it all...now I am not so sure... did I dumb down or what?
and Pure...my, my, shall we never communicate?
I object to bullies, to the use of force to achieve an end and I don't like laws than enforce 'moral edicts'; how others think I should conduct my affairs.
I recently asked anyone on the left to support their pov by intellectually defending the premise that it is ethical to use the force of government to direct the activity of society.
No one jumped up and waved the red flag of Marxism as the wave of the future. Not one could look me in the intellectual eye and claim to have the 'right' to forcibly 'take' from me and 'give' to someone else.
Nor will they ever. The ethics of Statism, do not exist. Even old Leonard Nimoy in a Startreck movie confused the generally liberal writers of the series when Spock said, dying, "The one is of greater importance than the many..." As I watched and listened to that, I smiled, thinking of all the Marxist's turning in their collective graves.
and Pure...never would I object to associations or cooperation between mutually agreeing organizations of individuals.
However, property rights, properly applied and protected by written law and a means of adjudication would offer solutions to many of the problems that have grown over the years, in terms of polution and ecological damage done by harvesting nature.
As those who desired to be free, fled Europe three centuries ago came to a new land, a new civilization, one that promise to protect those freedoms; so shall a future wave of seekers leave the mistakes of the past behind and seek a new home, perhaps beyond those surly bonds of earth. Oh, geez, did I wax poetic, egads. apologies offered...
regards...amicus
and Pure...my, my, shall we never communicate?
I object to bullies, to the use of force to achieve an end and I don't like laws than enforce 'moral edicts'; how others think I should conduct my affairs.
I recently asked anyone on the left to support their pov by intellectually defending the premise that it is ethical to use the force of government to direct the activity of society.
No one jumped up and waved the red flag of Marxism as the wave of the future. Not one could look me in the intellectual eye and claim to have the 'right' to forcibly 'take' from me and 'give' to someone else.
Nor will they ever. The ethics of Statism, do not exist. Even old Leonard Nimoy in a Startreck movie confused the generally liberal writers of the series when Spock said, dying, "The one is of greater importance than the many..." As I watched and listened to that, I smiled, thinking of all the Marxist's turning in their collective graves.
and Pure...never would I object to associations or cooperation between mutually agreeing organizations of individuals.
However, property rights, properly applied and protected by written law and a means of adjudication would offer solutions to many of the problems that have grown over the years, in terms of polution and ecological damage done by harvesting nature.
As those who desired to be free, fled Europe three centuries ago came to a new land, a new civilization, one that promise to protect those freedoms; so shall a future wave of seekers leave the mistakes of the past behind and seek a new home, perhaps beyond those surly bonds of earth. Oh, geez, did I wax poetic, egads. apologies offered...
regards...amicus
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi friend,
Amicus: //As those who desired to be free, fled Europe three centuries ago came to a new land, a new civilization, one that promise to protect those freedoms; so shall a future wave of seekers leave the mistakes of the past behind and seek a new home, perhaps beyond those surly bonds of earth. Oh, geez, did I wax poetic, egads. apologies offered...//
Each new exposition of specifics yield a new vague speech. But kinda thrilling. If only the 'new seekers' would be like Amicus.
You didn't answer if you objected to ALL levels of government, of just the federal? From your last posting, it seems all. Even a town meeting's allocation of taxes for schools does not sit well with you.
Here is one simple question Why is it illegitimate, wrong ['taking']for a town council to levy a property tax to build a public road; but according to you, if a neighbourhood association [the only one, to whom almost all residents belong] imposes** a compulsory 'levy' on its members to build a private road, that's just right and fine? {I.e., a resolution is passed: All members of the SmithJones neighbourhood association shall pay a one-time levy of ten dollars to build xx road.}
**Added: by a 2/3 majority vote in accord with its official, duly approved constitution as it addresses such matters.
You never answered my proposal that you believe most of what Americans have done through their governments, since 1850 has been wrong, from public schools, to the expansion of 'free speech' and religion based on 14 th amendment arguments.
This list--since it's approved by most--answers your challenge by the way, and has never even been noted by you:
I recently asked anyone on the left to support their pov by intellectually defending the premise that it is ethical to use the force of government to direct the activity of society.
No one jumped up and waved the red flag of Marxism as the wave of the future. Not one could look me in the intellectual eye and claim to have the 'right' to forcibly 'take' from me and 'give' to someone else.
I posted a number of government measures which I and most American believe are proper, from public schools, to banking regulations, to social security, to free speecn. In most cases these measure involve what you call 'taking' (i.e., taxing). And they're all vieweds legitimate and constitutional purposes by all but the Randist right.
It is right for a democratically elected government to tax and spend for publically agreed (in the cases cited, agreement now would often be 75%) purposes; purposes on which there is consensus.
The 'giving' is often not to a person (someone else) but to the society, e.g., in the form of public roads. Governments from Greek times to the present have taxed for roads and hardly anyone thought it was immoral or illegitimate till the prophet
MS Rand came along, and she's failed to convince 90%. Your insinuation that this 'statist' position is Marxist, is just silly.
Another 'giving' that almost universally approved, in Western democracies, is spending some money on old age pensions, whose source is partly taxes and partly contributions; started by the Kaiser in Germany, implemented by conservatives in England, and Democrats in the US (and not objected to by Republicans, in recent decades, save your pals the neo cons.) This is NOT an appeal to numbers to settle the argument. You *could* be the lone possessor of truth.
But almost all thinkers about government see its legitimate goals in broader terms than you, be it Plato, or Wm Buckley or Condi.
It would be silly to rehearse their arguments for you.
You did not answer if you favored more or less regulation of the airlines to deal with security issues.
Well, enough. Since you cant' answer points, I won't further harass.
Maybe outer space will by like Montana, and rugged individualists, tax protesters, like you, with AK 47s, will rule.
Can't resist one last bogus claim of yours, quoted above:
As those who desired to be free, fled Europe three centuries ago came to a new land, a new civilization, one that promise to protect those freedoms;
It's well known that the puritans in Mass, for instance, set up a kind of theocracy, banished dissenters, hanged a few quakers who returned, and so on.
They established a state-supported church, (not to attend was to break a law; as was attending an illegitimate 'private' service [Hutchinson]) and this arrangement was NOT affected or addressed by the Constitution as approved in 1789.
If memory serves, only a couple colonies had religious freedom. And probably none had 'free speech' as we conceive it. I.e., there were laws against blasphemy.
Your ignorance is as abysmal as your ideals are lofty.
cheers,
J
Amicus: //As those who desired to be free, fled Europe three centuries ago came to a new land, a new civilization, one that promise to protect those freedoms; so shall a future wave of seekers leave the mistakes of the past behind and seek a new home, perhaps beyond those surly bonds of earth. Oh, geez, did I wax poetic, egads. apologies offered...//
Each new exposition of specifics yield a new vague speech. But kinda thrilling. If only the 'new seekers' would be like Amicus.
You didn't answer if you objected to ALL levels of government, of just the federal? From your last posting, it seems all. Even a town meeting's allocation of taxes for schools does not sit well with you.
Here is one simple question Why is it illegitimate, wrong ['taking']for a town council to levy a property tax to build a public road; but according to you, if a neighbourhood association [the only one, to whom almost all residents belong] imposes** a compulsory 'levy' on its members to build a private road, that's just right and fine? {I.e., a resolution is passed: All members of the SmithJones neighbourhood association shall pay a one-time levy of ten dollars to build xx road.}
**Added: by a 2/3 majority vote in accord with its official, duly approved constitution as it addresses such matters.
You never answered my proposal that you believe most of what Americans have done through their governments, since 1850 has been wrong, from public schools, to the expansion of 'free speech' and religion based on 14 th amendment arguments.
This list--since it's approved by most--answers your challenge by the way, and has never even been noted by you:
I recently asked anyone on the left to support their pov by intellectually defending the premise that it is ethical to use the force of government to direct the activity of society.
No one jumped up and waved the red flag of Marxism as the wave of the future. Not one could look me in the intellectual eye and claim to have the 'right' to forcibly 'take' from me and 'give' to someone else.
I posted a number of government measures which I and most American believe are proper, from public schools, to banking regulations, to social security, to free speecn. In most cases these measure involve what you call 'taking' (i.e., taxing). And they're all vieweds legitimate and constitutional purposes by all but the Randist right.
It is right for a democratically elected government to tax and spend for publically agreed (in the cases cited, agreement now would often be 75%) purposes; purposes on which there is consensus.
The 'giving' is often not to a person (someone else) but to the society, e.g., in the form of public roads. Governments from Greek times to the present have taxed for roads and hardly anyone thought it was immoral or illegitimate till the prophet
MS Rand came along, and she's failed to convince 90%. Your insinuation that this 'statist' position is Marxist, is just silly.
Another 'giving' that almost universally approved, in Western democracies, is spending some money on old age pensions, whose source is partly taxes and partly contributions; started by the Kaiser in Germany, implemented by conservatives in England, and Democrats in the US (and not objected to by Republicans, in recent decades, save your pals the neo cons.) This is NOT an appeal to numbers to settle the argument. You *could* be the lone possessor of truth.
But almost all thinkers about government see its legitimate goals in broader terms than you, be it Plato, or Wm Buckley or Condi.
It would be silly to rehearse their arguments for you.
You did not answer if you favored more or less regulation of the airlines to deal with security issues.
Well, enough. Since you cant' answer points, I won't further harass.
Maybe outer space will by like Montana, and rugged individualists, tax protesters, like you, with AK 47s, will rule.
Can't resist one last bogus claim of yours, quoted above:
As those who desired to be free, fled Europe three centuries ago came to a new land, a new civilization, one that promise to protect those freedoms;
It's well known that the puritans in Mass, for instance, set up a kind of theocracy, banished dissenters, hanged a few quakers who returned, and so on.
They established a state-supported church, (not to attend was to break a law; as was attending an illegitimate 'private' service [Hutchinson]) and this arrangement was NOT affected or addressed by the Constitution as approved in 1789.
If memory serves, only a couple colonies had religious freedom. And probably none had 'free speech' as we conceive it. I.e., there were laws against blasphemy.
Your ignorance is as abysmal as your ideals are lofty.
cheers,
J
Last edited:
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
Amicus, in the words of one of my favourite authours, "It's what you learn after you know it all that really counts."
I'm afraid I'm going to stop debating you amicus. I'm no longer believe that you are a thinker with a different view from mine. I'm putting you into the ideologue category. You are not stating and arguing a philosphical point. You are proselytising an absolute position, hermetically sealed against all opposition.
It's mostly your use of buzzwords, Left, Statist, Marxist, etc.
Statist is definitely a buzzword. It only has meaning to those very few people who believe as you do.
Marxist makes me laugh. It makes me think of an entry in one of my favourite books.
I would appreciate it though if you would get your quotes right. When Spock was dying it was "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few".
Oy vay iz mir!
I'm afraid I'm going to stop debating you amicus. I'm no longer believe that you are a thinker with a different view from mine. I'm putting you into the ideologue category. You are not stating and arguing a philosphical point. You are proselytising an absolute position, hermetically sealed against all opposition.
It's mostly your use of buzzwords, Left, Statist, Marxist, etc.
Statist is definitely a buzzword. It only has meaning to those very few people who believe as you do.
Marxist makes me laugh. It makes me think of an entry in one of my favourite books.
I would appreciate it though if you would get your quotes right. When Spock was dying it was "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few".
Oy vay iz mir!
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
abysmally ignorant?
"You didn't answer if you objected to ALL levels of government, of just the federal? From your last posting, it seems all. Even a town meeting's allocation of taxes for schools does not sit well with you.
Here is one simple question Why is it illegitimate, wrong ['taking']for a town council to levy a property tax to build a public road; but according to you, if a neighbourhood association [the only one, to whom almost all residents belong] imposes** a compulsory 'levy' on its members to build a private road, that's just right and fine? {I.e., a resolution is passed: All member of the SmithJones neighbourhood association shall pay a one time levy of ten dollars to build xx road.}"
(The above copied and pasted from Pure's post)
It is wrong Pure, for the same reasons that every dictator ignores, 'the end does not justify the means'
even if 99 percent of your 'neighborhood association' voted to take my life because they really hate my beard, it is still wrong.
It is not so much the necessity of cooperation in a settlement of people, of any sort, that I am concerned with. Rational men who function in their own self interest, will reach amicable agreements in all matters without resorting to the use of force. Except criminals, of course.
I am trying my best to get you to admit a philosophical point, that you 'believe' that mankind is inherently evil/dangerous and must be controlled. That you accept the premise, that if man, left to his own devices, would create chaos and conflict.
You may be right...in my concept, all men should be free to choose their lifestyle. Should it be a lifestyle of drug addiction, through alcohol, cannabis, cocaine or the pleasant Poppy or the Betel nut....by 'rights' it should be an individuals choice.
Most of the world thinks otherwise...I guess they think/feel that so many would just 'indulge' in their drug of choice, to a point of being unproductive and possibly dangerous.
I do not accept that premise. as I said before, it is my conclusion that, 'psychological maturity can only be gained through a freedom to choose from all things and the inevitable consequences of those choices; be they good or bad.
Are there things that can more effectively and more efficiently be done my government? Yes, of course. As civilizations grow and numbers mount, it becomes very complex to service a vast poplulation.
My contention is that government is the worst possible way to achieve progress.
Government per se, creates nothing. Government can only function by confiscating smaller or larger amounts of the energy and resources of the people.
Although I do not appreciate being called ignorant, I do appreciate you being an antagonist. I have a novel in progress, wherein the 2 million runaway and latchkey kids that go on the streets each year get together and bring about a revolution from the arctic circle to the Panama Canal...it is called, the United States of North American.
One of the first acts of the new government is to abolish all, 'illegal substance laws' and to abolish all laws requiring drivers licenses and license plates and mandatory insurance. The reason being that the right to travel freely within a political entity, shall not be taxed or regulated by government. Thus, 'driving' is not a privilege granted by government, it is a 'right' to be guaranteed and protected by government...
...regards, your, 'ignorant and foolish advocate of human freedom', geez...whoodathunk the freedom and liberty were such controversial terms?
not I said the cabbage king....
amicus
"You didn't answer if you objected to ALL levels of government, of just the federal? From your last posting, it seems all. Even a town meeting's allocation of taxes for schools does not sit well with you.
Here is one simple question Why is it illegitimate, wrong ['taking']for a town council to levy a property tax to build a public road; but according to you, if a neighbourhood association [the only one, to whom almost all residents belong] imposes** a compulsory 'levy' on its members to build a private road, that's just right and fine? {I.e., a resolution is passed: All member of the SmithJones neighbourhood association shall pay a one time levy of ten dollars to build xx road.}"
(The above copied and pasted from Pure's post)
It is wrong Pure, for the same reasons that every dictator ignores, 'the end does not justify the means'
even if 99 percent of your 'neighborhood association' voted to take my life because they really hate my beard, it is still wrong.
It is not so much the necessity of cooperation in a settlement of people, of any sort, that I am concerned with. Rational men who function in their own self interest, will reach amicable agreements in all matters without resorting to the use of force. Except criminals, of course.
I am trying my best to get you to admit a philosophical point, that you 'believe' that mankind is inherently evil/dangerous and must be controlled. That you accept the premise, that if man, left to his own devices, would create chaos and conflict.
You may be right...in my concept, all men should be free to choose their lifestyle. Should it be a lifestyle of drug addiction, through alcohol, cannabis, cocaine or the pleasant Poppy or the Betel nut....by 'rights' it should be an individuals choice.
Most of the world thinks otherwise...I guess they think/feel that so many would just 'indulge' in their drug of choice, to a point of being unproductive and possibly dangerous.
I do not accept that premise. as I said before, it is my conclusion that, 'psychological maturity can only be gained through a freedom to choose from all things and the inevitable consequences of those choices; be they good or bad.
Are there things that can more effectively and more efficiently be done my government? Yes, of course. As civilizations grow and numbers mount, it becomes very complex to service a vast poplulation.
My contention is that government is the worst possible way to achieve progress.
Government per se, creates nothing. Government can only function by confiscating smaller or larger amounts of the energy and resources of the people.
Although I do not appreciate being called ignorant, I do appreciate you being an antagonist. I have a novel in progress, wherein the 2 million runaway and latchkey kids that go on the streets each year get together and bring about a revolution from the arctic circle to the Panama Canal...it is called, the United States of North American.
One of the first acts of the new government is to abolish all, 'illegal substance laws' and to abolish all laws requiring drivers licenses and license plates and mandatory insurance. The reason being that the right to travel freely within a political entity, shall not be taxed or regulated by government. Thus, 'driving' is not a privilege granted by government, it is a 'right' to be guaranteed and protected by government...
...regards, your, 'ignorant and foolish advocate of human freedom', geez...whoodathunk the freedom and liberty were such controversial terms?
not I said the cabbage king....
amicus
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Randism, per se, creates nothing. It can only function by confiscating smaller or larger amounts of hot air.
A:"to abolish all laws requiring drivers licenses"
and the same for airplane pilots too, I presume.
ya got the freedom recipe, bro!!
A:"to abolish all laws requiring drivers licenses"
and the same for airplane pilots too, I presume.
ya got the freedom recipe, bro!!
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Colly: No one has mentioned this nice little article. (I'm tired of discussing whether 'government' is evil and illegitimate.)
The Portuguese experience
The Abortion Question
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 7, 2004, New York Times.
LISBON — To understand what might happen in America if President Bush gets his way with the Supreme Court, consider recent events in Portugal.
Seven women were tried this year in the northern Portuguese fishing community of Aveiro for getting abortions. They were prosecuted — facing three-year prison sentences — along with 10 "accomplices," including husbands, boyfriends, parents and a taxi driver who had taken a pregnant woman to a clinic.
The police staked out gynecological clinics and investigated those who emerged looking as if they might have had abortions because they looked particularly pale, weak or upset. At the trial, the most intimate aspects of their gynecological history were revealed.
This was the second such mass abortion trial lately in Portugal. The previous one involved 42 defendants, including a girl who had been 16 at the time of the alleged abortion. {my bold}
Both trials ended in acquittals, except for a nurse who was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for performing abortions.
Portugal, like the U.S., is an industrialized democracy with a conservative religious streak, but the trials have repulsed the Portuguese. A recent opinion poll shows that people here now favor abortion rights, 79 percent to 14 percent. In a sign of the changing mood, Portugal's president recently commuted the remainder of the nurse's sentence. There's a growing sense that while abortion may be wrong, criminalization is worse.
"It's very embarrassing," said Sandy Gageiro, a Lisbon journalist who covered the trials. "Lots of reporters came and covered Portugal and said it had this medieval process."
Portugal offers a couple of sobering lessons for Americans who, like Mr. Bush, aim to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The first is that abortion laws are very difficult to enforce in a world as mobile as ours. Some 20,000 Portuguese women still get abortions each year, mostly by crossing the border into Spain. In the U.S., where an overturn of Roe v. Wade would probably mean bans on abortion only in a patchwork of Bible Belt states, pregnant women would travel to places like New York, California and Illinois for their abortions.
The second is that if states did criminalize abortion, they would face a backlash as the public focus shifted from the fetus to the woman. "The fundamentalists have lost the debate" in Portugal, said Helena Pinto, president of UMAR, a Portuguese abortion rights group. "Now the debate has shifted to the rights of women. Do we want to live in a country where women can be in jail for abortion?"
Mr. Bush and other conservatives have chipped away successfully at abortion rights, as Gloria Feldt notes in her new book, "The War on Choice." That's because their strategy has been to focus on procedures like so-called partial-birth abortion and on protecting fetal rights. The strategy succeeds because most Americans share Mr. Bush's aversion to abortion.
As do I.
Like most Americans, I find abortion a difficult issue, because a fetus seems much more than a lump of tissue but considerably less than a human being. Most of us are deeply uncomfortable with abortion, especially in the third trimester, but we still don't equate it with murder.
That's why it makes sense to try to reduce abortions by encouraging sex education and contraception. The conservative impulse to teach abstinence only, without promoting contraception, is probably one reason the U.S. has so many more abortions per capita than Canada or Britain.
Portugal's experience suggests that while many people are offended by abortion on demand, they might be even more troubled by criminalization of abortion.
"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."
The Portuguese experience
The Abortion Question
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 7, 2004, New York Times.
LISBON — To understand what might happen in America if President Bush gets his way with the Supreme Court, consider recent events in Portugal.
Seven women were tried this year in the northern Portuguese fishing community of Aveiro for getting abortions. They were prosecuted — facing three-year prison sentences — along with 10 "accomplices," including husbands, boyfriends, parents and a taxi driver who had taken a pregnant woman to a clinic.
The police staked out gynecological clinics and investigated those who emerged looking as if they might have had abortions because they looked particularly pale, weak or upset. At the trial, the most intimate aspects of their gynecological history were revealed.
This was the second such mass abortion trial lately in Portugal. The previous one involved 42 defendants, including a girl who had been 16 at the time of the alleged abortion. {my bold}
Both trials ended in acquittals, except for a nurse who was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for performing abortions.
Portugal, like the U.S., is an industrialized democracy with a conservative religious streak, but the trials have repulsed the Portuguese. A recent opinion poll shows that people here now favor abortion rights, 79 percent to 14 percent. In a sign of the changing mood, Portugal's president recently commuted the remainder of the nurse's sentence. There's a growing sense that while abortion may be wrong, criminalization is worse.
"It's very embarrassing," said Sandy Gageiro, a Lisbon journalist who covered the trials. "Lots of reporters came and covered Portugal and said it had this medieval process."
Portugal offers a couple of sobering lessons for Americans who, like Mr. Bush, aim to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The first is that abortion laws are very difficult to enforce in a world as mobile as ours. Some 20,000 Portuguese women still get abortions each year, mostly by crossing the border into Spain. In the U.S., where an overturn of Roe v. Wade would probably mean bans on abortion only in a patchwork of Bible Belt states, pregnant women would travel to places like New York, California and Illinois for their abortions.
The second is that if states did criminalize abortion, they would face a backlash as the public focus shifted from the fetus to the woman. "The fundamentalists have lost the debate" in Portugal, said Helena Pinto, president of UMAR, a Portuguese abortion rights group. "Now the debate has shifted to the rights of women. Do we want to live in a country where women can be in jail for abortion?"
Mr. Bush and other conservatives have chipped away successfully at abortion rights, as Gloria Feldt notes in her new book, "The War on Choice." That's because their strategy has been to focus on procedures like so-called partial-birth abortion and on protecting fetal rights. The strategy succeeds because most Americans share Mr. Bush's aversion to abortion.
As do I.
Like most Americans, I find abortion a difficult issue, because a fetus seems much more than a lump of tissue but considerably less than a human being. Most of us are deeply uncomfortable with abortion, especially in the third trimester, but we still don't equate it with murder.
That's why it makes sense to try to reduce abortions by encouraging sex education and contraception. The conservative impulse to teach abstinence only, without promoting contraception, is probably one reason the U.S. has so many more abortions per capita than Canada or Britain.
Portugal's experience suggests that while many people are offended by abortion on demand, they might be even more troubled by criminalization of abortion.
"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Rgraham...thank you for the correction...I had hopes that you would recall the later reference to that scene in which the 'many for the few' was indeed in the script..but no matter
Ho, hum...I guess this thread has been a sufficient diversion; one which I was about to withdraw from, as those on the left, if I may use that distinction, only attack the right and do not defend government control over human liberty...ah well, I shudda known better...
As Pure returns to the abortion issue...implying without doubt that she is surely in the 'right' on this argument. That a woman should, without a doubt, have full control over her reproduction seems to be the foundation.
I wonder now, as many do, about the history of women's rights, from the Colonial days on forward.
Is the independent woman really such a benefit to society?
Has the sexual revolution of the 50's really clarified the gender roles and their function in terms of family and progeny?
Somewhere I read that only about in half of all children are the biological fathers known. But then, the female has always been fickle, even the Greeks were concerned about patrilineage.
Is it important to know who the father was? Or does it matter? Are we truly headed down the road to sperm banks and genetic manipulation and cloning?
I maintain that women, in the approximately 75 years they have had equal rights to vote, have fouled their own nest.
They have demonstrated, beyond doubt, their inability to deal with issues on a rational basis. Instead, they have demanded and received the sacrifice of society to further their gender needs while relegating the male to the sidelines in almost all instances.
It is obscene to consider a human embryo/foetus as anything other than human life. An insult to knowledge and logic. It is life. Not a puppy, not a guppy, but a human.
Not even as a result of rape, or incest or a pinhole in a condom does anyone have the 'right' to take that life. It is 'life' and as such, is due all the protection that the laws of man can offer.
If you do not respect that life, then on what grounds do you respect any human life? None. By advocating abortion you lose the argument that human life has any value at all.
And yes, I know all your arguments, from the 70's hence, and none, not one, measure up against the innate human desire to 'protect' life.
It is only in the emotional, irrational workings of the female mind that the reality of that human life within the womb, can be discarded without conscience.
The sad thing in any debate or discussion about this issue, is that many who advocate abortion have undergone or approved of the the procedure and thus have a vested interest.
To justify and rationalize the act, they defend it with no quarter given. As rabid as the suicide bombers who sacrifice life for faith, this, 'belief' that one has a 'right' to take the life of an unborn child, is the quiet terrorism faced by the past two generations.
I am an atheist, I do not call upon God as the creator of life. Life is created by the union of a male and a female. That union is usually by mutual consent.
One must be responsible for one's actions, must one not?
Grow up! If you play, you pay. Simple as that.
regards...amicus...
Ho, hum...I guess this thread has been a sufficient diversion; one which I was about to withdraw from, as those on the left, if I may use that distinction, only attack the right and do not defend government control over human liberty...ah well, I shudda known better...
As Pure returns to the abortion issue...implying without doubt that she is surely in the 'right' on this argument. That a woman should, without a doubt, have full control over her reproduction seems to be the foundation.
I wonder now, as many do, about the history of women's rights, from the Colonial days on forward.
Is the independent woman really such a benefit to society?
Has the sexual revolution of the 50's really clarified the gender roles and their function in terms of family and progeny?
Somewhere I read that only about in half of all children are the biological fathers known. But then, the female has always been fickle, even the Greeks were concerned about patrilineage.
Is it important to know who the father was? Or does it matter? Are we truly headed down the road to sperm banks and genetic manipulation and cloning?
I maintain that women, in the approximately 75 years they have had equal rights to vote, have fouled their own nest.
They have demonstrated, beyond doubt, their inability to deal with issues on a rational basis. Instead, they have demanded and received the sacrifice of society to further their gender needs while relegating the male to the sidelines in almost all instances.
It is obscene to consider a human embryo/foetus as anything other than human life. An insult to knowledge and logic. It is life. Not a puppy, not a guppy, but a human.
Not even as a result of rape, or incest or a pinhole in a condom does anyone have the 'right' to take that life. It is 'life' and as such, is due all the protection that the laws of man can offer.
If you do not respect that life, then on what grounds do you respect any human life? None. By advocating abortion you lose the argument that human life has any value at all.
And yes, I know all your arguments, from the 70's hence, and none, not one, measure up against the innate human desire to 'protect' life.
It is only in the emotional, irrational workings of the female mind that the reality of that human life within the womb, can be discarded without conscience.
The sad thing in any debate or discussion about this issue, is that many who advocate abortion have undergone or approved of the the procedure and thus have a vested interest.
To justify and rationalize the act, they defend it with no quarter given. As rabid as the suicide bombers who sacrifice life for faith, this, 'belief' that one has a 'right' to take the life of an unborn child, is the quiet terrorism faced by the past two generations.
I am an atheist, I do not call upon God as the creator of life. Life is created by the union of a male and a female. That union is usually by mutual consent.
One must be responsible for one's actions, must one not?
Grow up! If you play, you pay. Simple as that.
regards...amicus...
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Amicus, thank you. I'm rethinking my positions on some things, because you've had the courage to express what no other man in this forum has been willing to say: woman bad.
But honestly, you men have to take some of the blame here. You could see that we were fouling our nests. Why didn't you say something decades ago? Those of us past the embryo stage are beyond redemption at this point. Women these days won't even consider having sex with a man who sees us for what we really are, unless he slips a roofie in our drink - and when we wake up, the first thing we do is kill the baby!
I haven't had my abortions yet, but when I do I'm going to feel just terrible about them. Please thank the warden for giving you access to Typing Picture Box. And stop hoarding the pills! They're good for you, and awfully important to the rest of us.
Chastened,
Shereads
---------------
But honestly, you men have to take some of the blame here. You could see that we were fouling our nests. Why didn't you say something decades ago? Those of us past the embryo stage are beyond redemption at this point. Women these days won't even consider having sex with a man who sees us for what we really are, unless he slips a roofie in our drink - and when we wake up, the first thing we do is kill the baby!
I haven't had my abortions yet, but when I do I'm going to feel just terrible about them. Please thank the warden for giving you access to Typing Picture Box. And stop hoarding the pills! They're good for you, and awfully important to the rest of us.
Chastened,
Shereads
---------------
amicus said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Amicus: I wonder now, as many do, about the history of women's rights, from the Colonial days on forward.
I can see that that you would wonder. But then again you're pretty ignorant of American history, and presumably have no knowledge of the "incorporation" issues involving 14th amendment, and the progressive enlargement of rights of free speech, press, religion, assembly.
Yes, by the same Supreme Court the bulk of whose decisions in the last hundred years, you apparently disagree with.
Though there are rumblings from Ashcroft Inc, and from those who would control the internet, there is MORE free speech in recent decades than previous ones; and in the 20th century, than the 19th.
Apparently the 'adolescent' Americans you despise--for dissimilarities with yourself-- wanted and welcomed these increased freedoms.
In general there's no problem with the proposition that proper, constitutional exercize of force--prudently undertaken-- can enlarge the sphere of freedom: Eisenhower's sending the troops to Little Rock to enforce an end to segregation The North's attack on the South, in the civil war, arguably resulted in freedom for the Black slaves.
In terms of the cliched analysis you present, this is not a pure 'ends justify the means' argument. It's an argument that given constitutional ends, and constitutional (including democratically approved) means, then there is no moral, civil, legal, or political wrong; this general assertion holds, with certain qualifications: e.g., provided that there is proportionality and specificity of means/solutions to the problems addressed. You don't go after flies with a shotgun.
This proposition, incidentally is the basis for your own position that police may rightfully use force against persons who break the law.
====
As to your remark:
I maintain that women, in the approximately 75 years they have had equal rights to vote, have fouled their own nest.
I see now why your ideal political system is based on the 'rational man'; apparently I misunderstood the scope of that noun['man'] in your lexicon. Foolishly assumed I was dealing with someone living in the 20th century, instead of the 18th.
I can see that that you would wonder. But then again you're pretty ignorant of American history, and presumably have no knowledge of the "incorporation" issues involving 14th amendment, and the progressive enlargement of rights of free speech, press, religion, assembly.
Yes, by the same Supreme Court the bulk of whose decisions in the last hundred years, you apparently disagree with.
Though there are rumblings from Ashcroft Inc, and from those who would control the internet, there is MORE free speech in recent decades than previous ones; and in the 20th century, than the 19th.
Apparently the 'adolescent' Americans you despise--for dissimilarities with yourself-- wanted and welcomed these increased freedoms.
In general there's no problem with the proposition that proper, constitutional exercize of force--prudently undertaken-- can enlarge the sphere of freedom: Eisenhower's sending the troops to Little Rock to enforce an end to segregation The North's attack on the South, in the civil war, arguably resulted in freedom for the Black slaves.
In terms of the cliched analysis you present, this is not a pure 'ends justify the means' argument. It's an argument that given constitutional ends, and constitutional (including democratically approved) means, then there is no moral, civil, legal, or political wrong; this general assertion holds, with certain qualifications: e.g., provided that there is proportionality and specificity of means/solutions to the problems addressed. You don't go after flies with a shotgun.
This proposition, incidentally is the basis for your own position that police may rightfully use force against persons who break the law.
====
As to your remark:
I maintain that women, in the approximately 75 years they have had equal rights to vote, have fouled their own nest.
I see now why your ideal political system is based on the 'rational man'; apparently I misunderstood the scope of that noun['man'] in your lexicon. Foolishly assumed I was dealing with someone living in the 20th century, instead of the 18th.
Last edited:
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
seaknight said:
I know it was too much to ask you ro read USA Patriot. I know it was too much to ask you to present some prrof or at least evidence. Is is too much to ask you to read just the excerpts?
Your consumer information maybe be seized, in it's entierity, on no more than a note from the head of the FBI, and those who give it to you are forbidden to tell you it has been seized.
It used to take a court order to do this, now a note from the head of the requesting agency is enough. And since you aren't informed, you can not even request a review by a court to see if there WAS probable cause.
-Colly
G
Guest
Guest
Colleen Thomas said:
Colleen
I think someone like you wouldn't have to worry about laws any way. According to this post above you are above the law.
1. No state or local law allows private citizens to have control over papers pertaining to an open investigation. Whether they be photocopies or originals. but for some reason you're allowed to keep them in your own home.
2. And you were also allowed to willfully violate court orders? That's absolutely incredible.
In short there's no way in hell either of these two things happened if you were obeying the law. The only way a court ordered wire tap can be removed is if a court orders it removed, or if the the order expires.
So according to this post you are either a liar or a criminal. Which one
G
Guest
Guest
Colleen Thomas said:
I have read it in it's entirity, not just excerpts.
The FBI has always had the ability to check consumer information without the persons knowledge. What do you think they pay all those hackers for, and have since the seventies.
Also the person must be involved somehow in an investigation for them to do this. They CAN NOT just pick a random person and seize their records.
I've been trained in law enforcement, and we learned about stuff like this long before the patriot act was written.
Sometimes agencies can ask the court fot a "blanket warrant" This allows that agency to seize any information that deem essential to their investigation. Then when they prexent the case to the court during trial information can be dismissed.
Blanket warrants can also be used for taps. It allows any phone or communication device that the person is likely to be used to be tapped. Including cell, home, work, computer, even a friends house.
These warrants have been used for long time. It's not an invention of this peice of legislation.
Similar threads
