If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
But it's da law!
" 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:- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
But it's da law!
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
But it's da law!
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
But it's da law!
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|