But it's da law!

For over 30 years Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land. Radical
feminists applauded it as a great victory for women. They pointed to
it as proof as to how the world had changed. There was a bright new
day dawning and feminists were sure that *they* were going to run the
show.

Then came Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The 1992 Supreme Court opinion
allowed restrictions on abortion. If Sandra Day O'Connor had voted
differently in Casey, Roe v. Wade might have become history over a
decade ago.

Now comes Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. The New Hampshire law requires
*parental* notification or a judge's approval before girls under age 18
can have an abortion. A more conservative Supreme Court is weighing the
issues.

The sticking point in Ayotte is that the New Hampshire law contains no
health of the *woman* exception. In time, that oversight will probably
be remedied.

Self-appointed queens of the brave new world such as the Feminist
Majority's Eleanor Smeal and the National Organization for Women's Kim
Gandy are seeing their chimerical kingdom crumble before them. Despite
their public rhetoric, the Smeal-Gandy gang knows that the days of Roe
v. Wade as the law of the land are numbered.

While the above should serve as a warning to no-spanks with visions of
draconian no-spank laws dancing in their silly little heads, it most
probably won't. They are so anti-family as to be oblivious to reality.
Nevertheless, laws come and laws go. The world moves on.

When governments fall, schemes collapse, and agendas fade away, what is
left are men and women who come together, breed, and form nuclear
families. In time, they may become extended families. It is from this
core that all else on society rests.

Absent the children produced and raised by mothers and fathers, there
is no society. As a family, same sex couples do not procreate. Lone
parent families are an unmitigated disaster.

Because they are so out of touch with reality, the only way no spanks
could perpetuate their agenda was to break up families with a feminist
dominated child welfare Schutzstaffel that forbade spanking and then,
citing a decrease in the prevalence of spanking which they engineered,
pass laws that prohibited it as totally unnecessary in light of new and
improved childcare methods.

Whether mettlesome no spanks like it or not, the strength of
traditional families is the strength of the civilization. That which
is not done to strengthen families weakens the social order. Contrary
to feminist dogma, it is one of those little laws of life that cannot
be repealed.

" But it's da law!"

Not in the US, yet, everywhere. But it's happening in the schools, and
Minnesota, and our neighbors, and our compatriots in other lands.

Shouldn't be too much longer. 0:-

Opinions wrote:
For over 30 years Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land. Radical
feminists applauded it as a great victory for women. They pointed to
it as proof as to how the world had changed. There was a bright new
day dawning and feminists were sure that *they* were going to run the
show.

I don't recall such claims. I recall something said that could
translate pretty clearly as they were "goign to run THEIR show, as in
women."

Then came Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The 1992 Supreme Court opinion
allowed restrictions on abortion. If Sandra Day O'Connor had voted
differently in Casey, Roe v. Wade might have become history over a
decade ago.

Now comes Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. The New Hampshire law requires
*parental* notification or a judge's approval before girls under age 18
can have an abortion. A more conservative Supreme Court is weighing the
issues.

The sticking point in Ayotte is that the New Hampshire law contains no
health of the *woman* exception. In time, that oversight will probably
be remedied.

Self-appointed queens of the brave new world

Queens of the Female portion, you mean?

such as the Feminist
Majority's Eleanor Smeal and the National Organization for Women's Kim
Gandy are seeing their chimerical kingdom crumble before them. Despite
their public rhetoric, the Smeal-Gandy gang knows that the days of Roe
v. Wade as the law of the land are numbered.

You apparently believe that a man can force a women to bring to term a
child she has conceived with him.

Is it her body or his she inhabits?

If you want the baby, have it transplated to YOU and give birth to it
by Ceasarian.

Most women would be happy to agree to this, I do believe.

Modern science is wonnerfull wonnderfull, isn't it.

While the above should serve as a warning to no-spanks with visions of
draconian no-spank laws dancing in their silly little heads, it most
probably won't. They are so anti-family as to be oblivious to reality.
Nevertheless, laws come and laws go. The world moves on.

Except for the "anti-family" claim I can see no connection, by analogy,
or metaphor that applies.

That piece, of course, is considerably open to question. I chosing to
not spank your child anti family? If it isn't then how would be
campaigning to get others to not spank anti-family?

It would have to apply to both. So, show us how a family that doesn't
spank is antifamily.

When governments fall, schemes collapse, and agendas fade away, what is
left are men and women who come together, breed, and form nuclear
families. In time, they may become extended families. It is from this
core that all else on society rests.

Collapse? Fade away? Is abortion illegal in the United States now, as
it once was?

Absent the children produced and raised by mothers and fathers, there
is no society.

Inaccurate. "Mother and Fathers" can "produce" children, as they most
certainly do, that they are not competent to, or sometimes even want to
raise, and other may do so theirby producing both family and society
member.

As a family, same sex couples do not procreate.

Sure they can, just not with each other. A male homosexual can have sex
with or provide sperm for a female to become impregnated. A female
homosexual can have sex with any fertile male, or recieve sperm from
any, and become impregnated.

A male, or a pair of males, or a female or a pair of females can adopt
the product of a male and female produced child and parent it, raise
it, thus producing both "family" and contributing to the population
called "society" by you.

Lone
parent families are an unmitigated disaster.

But a homosexual family is not a "lone parent family."

And the data that shows single parents failing inevitible come from
population demographics that are almost exclusively poverty and crime
ridden ghettoes.

Two parent families there share a very poor prognosis with their
children, only slightly better than single parent families.

Homosexual families, it's been proven repeatedly, have the same
outcomes, all other things such as education, economics, mental health,
being equal, as heterosexual families.

And in fact with single parent families, male head or female head,
outcomes are much the same, as long as the education, economics, mental
health are equal.

You have been seduced by the propagandists with a sick and
unconscionable agenda. They are willing to use, that is lie, about the
children and their outcomes.

Children suffer when you bigots promulgate your lies and they are
subjected to the rantings of you, or fools that believe you without
checking your facts. They think there might just be something wrong
with them.

There is not. Check it out.

Because they are so out of touch with reality,

With your "reality?" Yes, you are correct. We know it for what it is. A
neurotically founded intergenerational sickness related to child
betrayal of trust of the protection charged parent who spanks that very
child.....then goes on, with the effects of the shock and the
dysfunctions it creates, trying to make "normal" what is not, and
repeating it with the next generation: his children. Ad neuseum.

the only way no spanks
could perpetuate their agenda was to break up families with a feminist
dominated child welfare Schutzstaffel that forbade spanking and then,

Odd, there are no laws against spanking anywhere in this land with the
exception of questionable interpretation of Minnesota statute.

And issues of feminism are not the "only way" nor of no-spank
advocates.

We have many more ways than that to pursue this goal of freeing
children of the terrorist behavior of their unregenerate parents, who
are themselves trapped in their parents betrayal of them.

I have a question for you.

I am unable to establish clearly that not spanking is a plank in the
platform of feminists and their agenda.

Do you have some credible referrences I could observe?

Jordan Riak, well known in anti spanking advocacy, petitioned by
letter, the chair of NOW and made the point that there were sexist and
sexual exploitation issues to consider.

http://www.nospank.net/now2.htm

At that link that shows the letter (used in a placed ad) you will see a
number of men quoted as in support of NOW considering this issue, with
emphasis on prohibition of such treatment of girls. They could be
"feminists" of course.

And I presume, at least partially in response, but likely also
independently considered for some times, NOW responded in its 2005
convention adenda thusly (thank you for bring this up and providing an
opportunity to share, even in this small arena of Usenet aps):

"CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN U.S. SCHOOLS

2005

WHEREAS, over 340,000 students in grades K through 12 in the public
schools of 22 states are paddled annually, and of this number, it is
estimated that 75,000 are females; and

WHEREAS, women in high school may be subject to school paddlings even
after having attained the age of legal adulthood; and

WHEREAS, the great majority of school corporal punishment is designated
and administered by male administrators and teachers; and

WHEREAS, school paddling has an ample history of inflicting severe
bruising, intense and/or long-lasting pain and, in some cases,
debilitating injury; and

WHEREAS, the availability of civil action over injurious school
corporal punishment is increasingly impeded by states' passage of
specialized "teacher protection" immunity laws; and

WHEREAS, the modern-day prospect of unwanted, widespread, prurient
attention to victims via corporal punishment-themed adult websites may
inhibit parents from seeking redress for their injured child for fear
of the publicity such complaints could generate; and

WHEREAS, corporal punishment legitimizes violence and aggression as a
method of problem solving by precisely those adults the student is
expected to emulate, thus encouraging his/her own use of or submission
to violence and aggression; and

WHEREAS, in the overwhelming majority of cases, battering husbands and
battered wives were routinely exposed to corporal punishment when they
were children, either receiving it, witnessing it or both; and

WHEREAS, the legitimacy of principals spanking students is at odds with
prevailing sexual harassment codes, which bar employers from spanking
employees; and

WHEREAS, school paddling violates Title IX insofar as girls and boys
are impacted differently, because, unlike boys, girls would have to
reveal intimate personal information in order to avoid the chance of
this punishment being unfairly compounded by menstrual discomfort; and

WHEREAS, corporal punishment carries unique psychological hazards since
it makes the body a direct transmitter of condemnation; and

WHEREAS, the physical assault of persons incapable of protecting
themselves is antithetical to feminist and democratic values;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women
(NOW) oppose the use of corporal punishment in U.S. schools and all
other institutions, public and private, where children are cared for
and educated."

Which of these points do you disagree with, and would care to debate?

This newsgroup over the years has included citations of considerable
evidence in support of NOW's statement above.

Notice they simply take a stand against, not a call to legislate and
legally prohibit.

Or do you presume a "slippery slope" that actually is nowhere
insinuated or evidenced in this manifesto of NOW.

Don't presume I'm a supporter of NOW, in total, or in particular.

Thus also do not presume I disagree with distinct issues they bring up,
either.

Quoting your from above to pick up the thread were we left off:

".. dominated child welfare Schutzstaffel that forbade spanking and
then,
citing a decrease in the prevalence of spanking which they engineered,
pass laws that prohibited it as totally unnecessary in light of new and
improved childcare methods.

Can you provide us with those laws they helped pass that forbide
spanking, and where they actually advocating the passage of such laws?

I see that they "oppose" the use in "schools," and not a single mention
is made of family decision making on the issue of whether to spank or
not.

And the "destruction of the family by feminists" seems to be your
theme, so surely there is some connection you see.

Where, please?

Whether mettlesome no spanks like it or not, the strength of
traditional families is the strength of the civilization.

Historically you are completely off your nut.

"Civilization" has been founded on family that has taken many forms.
Sometimes by social contract (agreement in multiple marriage forms of
both polandary and polygamy), religious orders of single sex membership
providing ALL the results of family sans child bearing and raising,
though many dedicated themselves to child rearing by supporting
orphanage or going into teaching in residential schools.

We have had women abandoned by the results of war, or disease that took
the men more than they, with their children. We have the original
Mormons, and not a few survivors that practice polygamy.

Anthropologists studying with archeologists have studied campsites and
trails to and from them that strongly suggest in some parts of ancient
africa men and women existed in side by side family tribes, gender
seperate except for the children. They traveled, hunted gathered, in
sex exclusive units, then came together on occasion...not every night,
but on occasion, apparently to share, and I presume since we are still
here, to make merry. Though that might have been the result of "bush
meet encounters" deliberately or otherwise.

And note, with all the different forms, some extinct and some still
around on this planet, we are still here. And not a whole lot more
civil today than then.

That which
is not done to strengthen families weakens the social order.

Men and women, heterosexual, homosexual, together and separetly, have
worked to strengthen families. They simply haven't limited themselve to
the claim that "family" must consist a man and a women and produce
children.

A 'famiily' serves to do the following things and allows them, not
guarantee them of course:

Provide an economic base
Emotional support provision -- companionship
Sexual partnering
Upkeep of a residence
A place to return to with someone there

You might want to add and argue for "producing children"

I'd counter with this: Is a group of more than one person not a family
if they do not physically produce children?

A married couple that is sterile in one or both partners that does not
adopt, or in fact DOES adopt, is not a family then?

A group of relatives that live together, but do not produce children
between them, say a couple of old batchelor brothers, are not family? I
know some, right down the road.

They provide all the legally allowed family services to each other as
far as I can see. Partly just by their presence in the same house.

The are, in the census, just as all such families, regardless of gender
and blood relations, counted as a "family" in a "household."

Here are some interesting arguments with some facts included:

http://dcyeh.com/sy0304/2ndsem/groupb_projects/family/

" ... Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that recognition of such
unions undermines the sanctity of marriage, harms children and
demoralizes society. There is no evidence of any of this - or of any
other harmful impact - in Hawaii, Vermont or California. On the
contrary, studies have shown that parents' sexual orientation doesn't
hurt their children. As the census shows, gay people are already
parents to hundreds of thousands of children. ..."

http://www.census.gov/population/soc...1999/tabF1.txt
The US Census refers to family in this manner, including, you will
note, no children at all:
Not this long list of 'family' without children under various ages, or
none at all:

Without own children, any age
|With own children, any age
|Without own children under 25 years
|With own children under 25 years
|Without own children under 18 years
|With own children under 18 years
|Without own children under 12 years
|With own children under 12 years
|Without own children under 6 years
|With own children under 6 years
|Without own children under 5 years
|With own children under 5 years
|Without own children under 3 years
|With own children under 3 years
|Without own children under 1 year

Contrary
to feminist dogma, it is one of those little laws of life that cannot
be repealed.

Which "law of life" are you referring to that says "family" consists
only of child bearing couples made up of one female and one male?

I find little support, outside radical nutso circles, for any such
definition or "law."

One can be family without chidren.

With one parent.

With two or more parents of any sexual orientation mix.

They are still family.

You and your kind are the real danger to the planet because you operate
within your narrow definition of many things, not just family. Most
happily your power wans to the point of disappearing.

And you continue to include, among those many definitions, the one that
impowers you to "discipline" children by assault because you assign it
YOUR name and definition to hide from others, and more importantly from
yourselves, the fact is is assault and battery.

Sadly for you, and happily for us, you are not the ones in charge here.
Your delusions are not likely to remain long the law of the land, as
your cohorts in other lands have learned.

And any small power defaulted to you in the past is diminishing rapidly
and with acceleration to the point of popping out of existence with a
tiny "piff" and the smallest little whisp of smoke resembling a fart
coming from the source of all your beliefs and thinking, as far as I
can determine.

I don't make closer examine to be sure of that though, because of the
disgust any proximity to your asses invokes. You apparently having not
wipped your asses, or dusted and fumigated your brains in centuries,
stink.

0:-

On 1 Dec 2005 wrote:

" But it's da law!"

Not in the US, yet, everywhere. But it's happening in the schools, and
Minnesota, and our neighbors, and our compatriots in other lands.

Shouldn't be too much longer. 0:-

I heard that it happen in exactly 4 months from today. ;-)

Doan

From 19th century fugitive slave laws in the United States to absolute
gender equity in the Soviet Union, history is filled with self-serving
laws that are no longer enforceable. Although once strictly enforced,
laws regarding emperor worship in Rome are little more than a quaint
curiosity these days.

At one point, abortion was a non-issue in the United States. Early
abortion laws were passed more to protect women than anything else.
Then, feminists saw abortion as a *right* due them and it became a
political issue. Although now largely legal, the *right* to an
abortion will probably become severely restricted in the future.

Spanking was largely a non-issue until no-spanks made it one. A
humiliating defeat in Oakland and a law that allows whipping with
switches and belts in Oklahoma rewarded their efforts.

No-spanks fail to realize than any legal victory that they achieve will
be temporary since it will be based on what they want rather than what
people do.

Doan wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 wrote:

" But it's da law!"

Not in the US, yet, everywhere. But it's happening in the schools, and
Minnesota, and our neighbors, and our compatriots in other lands.

Shouldn't be too much longer. 0:-

I heard that it happen in exactly 4 months from today. ;-)

Doan

Obsessive continues his wishful thinking and his belief in his
omnipotence. ..


Opinions wrote:
From 19th century fugitive slave laws in the United States to absolute
gender equity in the Soviet Union, history is filled with self-serving
laws that are no longer enforceable. Although once strictly enforced,
laws regarding emperor worship in Rome are little more than a quaint
curiosity these days.

You mean if my slave runs there is no longer a law that I can expect
responsible citizens to catch and hold him for me, and possibly return
him for a small reward? Well durn.

The difference you fail to recognize is that while some laws were
ineffective because of changing times that brought about an
unwillingness to enforce, and that because of conditions that make it
impossible to enforce, (political and economic disruption in the Soviet
Union case) changing conditions may well make it quiet possible to
enforce them again.

Do you then support the temporary abrogation of women's rights under
law in Russia and believe the law should not be enforced, so that women
are sexually harassed, economically deprived, and domesticaly abused in
the home without recourse?

At one point, abortion was a non-issue in the United States.

Yes, women had been disenfrancised for long that this was a later issue
to be addressed. It was.

Early
abortion laws were passed more to protect women than anything else.

Do you mean anti-"abortion laws?" How were they protecting women.

If you meant laws that gave women the right to choose..you are right.
They were most decidedly to protect women. Should women not be
protected as regards how they chose to use their own body?

Then, feminists saw abortion as a *right* due them and it became a
political issue.

Yes. Do men have certain rights? Are not due them?

Although now largely legal, the *right* to an
abortion will probably become severely restricted in the future.

Really? You are that sure your right wing wackos will grow even more in
power?

You don't see a backlash coming?

We don't have the problems of Russia inherited from the USSR to deny
women their legal rights.

Spanking was largely a non-issue until no-spanks made it one.

Slavery was largely the same and so was women's suffarage.

Ditto the exploitation of children and the rights the parent had
brutally discipline them.

A
humiliating defeat in Oakland and a law that allows whipping with
switches and belts in Oklahoma rewarded their efforts.

A temporary setback in Oakland? I could have told them not to waste
their time there.

And of course Okalahoma is one of our nations more enlightened and
successful states, economically and socially. Of course. With schools
in the top ....what percent nationally?

Take a look at this attempt to minize and "explain" away it's students
33rd in state rankings and the significance that childre rearing holds
.... if their claim is right.

"... Oklahoma's students are worse off than the national average in
areas affecting students' ability to learn. They're poorer and less
healthy, they're more likely to be victimized by crime or to come from
broken homes. ..."
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...-yardstick.htm

Would you say the majority of these families in OK spank or don't
spank? R R R R R

No-spanks fail to realize than any legal victory that they achieve will
be temporary since it will be based on what they want rather than what
people do.

I recall similar arguements...in fact far more compelling ones ...
promising nationwide economic disaster and even an end to The Union not
just as a political entity, but as an economic one.

It was speculated that it would set us back behind the nations of
Europe to
a degree we would never recover. It was about slavery. The Pro folks so
argued.

Think it's time to end the great "failed experiment" of emancipation of
the slaves and collect all the black folks and put them back on The
Plantation?

I'll take it up with them and get a reaction. 0:-

I suspect I'll be chicken though and point out it was you that seemed
to be logically supporting such reductionist and reconstructionist
ideas. Ah the Ol' South, with Sammy bringing our Mint Juleps....and a
banjo softly strumming wth those Darkies a sweetly singin' Waaaaay Down
upon da Suwaaaaaneeee Ribber......the chorus hummin' ...mmm mm mm mmmmm
mm mmmmmm mm.

Just brings a tear to my eye, it does.

Surely my Internist will be will interested in giving up his practice,
and that Chairman at Bechtel Industries too for the chance to join in.

In fact they can work up at the big House. Them being a little better
educated and all. Probably too old for field work and they surely will
learn to make fine Juleps.

Thanks for the suggestion, Lil 'o'

R R R R R R .....yer a bundle of laughs.

Chil' it's not what people do that matters. That's changed again and
again over time for thousands upon thousands of years. Change is what's
inevitable.

And where there's a setback here there's a gain there.

The law is coming, and there are more than enough of us to see to it
they are uniformly and vigorously enforced, forever. Until they aren't
needed. Because just like folks discovered when women won their
equality, and blacks their freedom, and children their escape from pain
and exploitation.....it's not perfect, (your criteria for success of a
law) but it's close enough.

Russian women will get their equality back.

The times they are a changin' even if it's bad now.

http://www.feminist.com/news/vaw40.html
http://www.un-instraw.org/revista/hy...s/en/0690.html
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/women
http://dmoz.org/Society/People/Women/Women's_Rights/
[[[ It's just a tad bigger than you delude yourself about, Lil
'o'
http://www.stopvaw.org/Russian_Federation.html

What you appear to be saying, Lil 'o', is that crime is rampant and
that because people are "doing" it laws are useless and you'd like to
see things stay the way they are.

Now tell us.

Do you really think women should have no right to abortion?
That they should be subjected to murder by their spouses on the scale
we see in Russia today?
That children should return to being hit with objects and even marked
by them?

Do you want those things?

I don't think so...but if you do, you might as well give it up, cause
according to the evidence of history, .... not, as Geo 1 said, gonna
happen...only this ain't G1. It's the entire world laughingly giving
you and yours the finger.

That's why reactionaries such as yourself aren't going to change things
back. Ever.

Yer dangerous, but yer also a monumental joke.

0;-

Doan wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 wrote:

" But it's da law!"

Not in the US, yet, everywhere. But it's happening in the schools, and
Minnesota, and our neighbors, and our compatriots in other lands.

Shouldn't be too much longer. 0:-

I heard that it happen in exactly 4 months from today. ;-)

Doan