LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 03-11-2011, 08:48 PM   #1
PaulRyansew

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
408
Senior Member
Default Let's make miscarriages illegal.
Which is why
Franklin has introduced the bill each session since 2002 but it has never made it out of committee, his office said, adding that it likely never will.
PaulRyansew is offline


Old 03-11-2011, 09:20 PM   #2
Indidockobeni

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
418
Senior Member
Default
There's a lesson for you to learn. I would have expected a gay man to be less bigoted.
Indidockobeni is offline


Old 03-11-2011, 10:00 PM   #3
Qnnoshxj

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
384
Senior Member
Default
Apparently this guy has been introducing the same bill in the state legislature for almost 10 years now and it never passes.

Edit: Mucked by Rah.
Qnnoshxj is offline


Old 03-11-2011, 10:13 PM   #4
usadatronourl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
394
Senior Member
Default
Apparently this guy has been introducing the same bill in the state legislature for almost 10 years now and it never passes.

Edit: Mucked by Rah.
Worse, it never made it out of committee.
usadatronourl is offline


Old 03-11-2011, 11:16 PM   #5
bely832new

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
408
Senior Member
Default
Who said that someone is guilty until proven innocent?
bely832new is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 03:42 AM   #6
SkeniaInhilla

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
397
Senior Member
Default
There's a lesson for you to learn. I would have expected a gay man to be less bigoted.
Where have I expressed bigotry in this thread?
SkeniaInhilla is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 06:37 AM   #7
casinochniks

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
416
Senior Member
Default
Where have I expressed bigotry in this thread?
Here:

I expected such a proposed law from an African or a Muslim
casinochniks is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 09:33 AM   #8
Allorneadesee

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
402
Senior Member
Default
From the first line of the article you posted:

...if the mother cannot prove there was no "human involvement.
Reverse onus.
Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's shitty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever." That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk.
Allorneadesee is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 09:40 AM   #9
jarsbars

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
375
Senior Member
Default
Germanos, stop distorting my statements. What I actually said is dramatically different from what you so-called "quoted."

I would have expected such a proposed law from a dictator of an African country, or a Muslim fundamentalist country, not from a politician of a Western, "enlightened" country.
jarsbars is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 09:55 AM   #10
SHpuntik

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
608
Senior Member
Default
Germanos, stop distorting my statements. What I actually said is dramatically different from what you so-called "quoted."
No it's not. Your prejudice is only thinly veiled by your adjectives (?):
I would have expected such a proposed law from a dictator of an African country, or a Muslim fundamentalist country, not from a politician of a Western, "enlightened" country.
Found any laws yet on miscarriages being illegal?
SHpuntik is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 10:07 AM   #11
QHdy5Z3A

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
393
Senior Member
Default
There was no need to mention Africans or Muslims AT ALL. Apparently YOU tie Africans and Muslims to this while you have not a single thread of evidence to back your prejudice up.

You should be aware that it's the generalisation of groups is harmfull. How often you do not hear prejudiced statements on gays and when the bigots are confronted say: "I have nothing against gays, some of my best friends are gay." At the moment that's the level of your defence for your bigoted remarks ("I didn't say ALL").
QHdy5Z3A is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 10:27 AM   #12
sPncEjF7

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
557
Senior Member
Default
Okay, that's a better way of putting it.

But that statement is prejudicial against dictators and fundamentalists. You're a PC nazi.
sPncEjF7 is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 11:55 AM   #13
pseusawbappem

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
472
Senior Member
Default
Well, looking at the quotes the "mother cannot prove" part appears to be the author's shitty paraphrasing; further down it quotes the bill's actual wording categorically excluding miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever."
Fair enough. I read the opening and figured it was the typical Republican/prolife BS. I confess I didn't read any further as this was enough for me to roll eyes and move on.

That wording, combined with the pre-existing constitutional status quo, would suggest the bill's originial intention (and courts' inevitable subsequent interpetation) that the State would have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human involvement occurred. Great.

But don't let that get in the way of a good ol' sensationalist circle-jerk. Meh. Get better reporters. The article by your own admission was incorrect.
pseusawbappem is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 03:52 PM   #14
sam

Join Date
Oct 2005
Age
44
Posts
517
Senior Member
Default
**** you, gaylord.


Go back to playing with the kids in the playground, little one.
sam is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 08:43 PM   #15
markbila

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
388
Senior Member
Default
There is?
markbila is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 09:23 PM   #16
herrdwq

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
Darius, do state laws trump federal laws?
herrdwq is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 09:44 PM   #17
diegogo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
448
Senior Member
Default
It has to do with the idea that the Republican in Georgia even thinks that a state can prohibit abortion, when federal law makes abortion legal.
diegogo is offline


Old 03-12-2011, 09:49 PM   #18
Siffidiolla

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
562
Senior Member
Default
Maybe it's just throwing a bone to pro-life constituents with the full knowledge that it wouldn't fly in court were it to be passed, which it wouldn't be anyway.
MAYBE... YAH THINK

That's all this is about... looking good to the people that elected you. It happens all the time. This is really a non story.
The only story here is the typical Politician playing up to his supporters.
Siffidiolla is offline


Old 03-13-2011, 11:00 PM   #19
effenseshoora

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
504
Senior Member
Default
It has to do with the idea that the Republican in Georgia even thinks that a state can prohibit abortion, when federal law makes abortion legal.
What federal law legalizes abortion? I thought it was just a SCOTUS opinion that decided the Constitution protected abortions.
effenseshoora is offline


Old 03-13-2011, 11:31 PM   #20
Lån-Penge

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
398
Senior Member
Default
What federal law legalizes abortion? I thought it was just a SCOTUS opinion that decided the Constitution protected abortions.
case law = law
Lån-Penge is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity