[tomder55]

Let me make it simple . Neither a corporation nor a fetus should be denied their rights without due process . Due process does not mean that the state has the power to wack a baby or a corporation . Is it really a good idea to let government, for example, raid and seize property from businesses without a search and seizure warrant? The Bill of Right ensures that doesn't happen. It can only happen as a right if the corporation has that right.
Let me make this other observation about those ought rights (this is a new concept to me) . The constitution limits the government to only enumerated powers. Therefore the rights are also restraints on the government and not the people... or in the case of corporations ,the persons who assemble to incorporate.

So... would you feel better if said corporations are PERSONS entitled to their rights ?

[tomder55]

Clete ,no it is not a utopia. I would not want to live in humans concepts of utopia like lefties do . They are the utopians .
I on the other hand know humans are imperfect and that the only way to guarantee the rights of humans is to restrain the governments formed by them.

[excon]

Hello wingers:

Here's a great addition to your wish list.. Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), Wisconsin proposes Bill that labels single-parenthood as child abuse.

"48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."

Could this be an attack on gays?? We're just getting warmed up here, aren't we?

excon

[speechlesstx]

I'm sure this will be yanked soon so let's post it now. From the US Dept of Health and Human Services:

Family Factors

Specific life situations of some families—such as marital conflict, domestic violence, single parenthood, unemployment, financial stress, and social isolation—may increase the likelihood of maltreatment. While these factors by themselves may not cause maltreatment, they frequently contribute to negative patterns of family functioning.

Family Structure

Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents.45 Single parent households are substantially more likely to have incomes below the poverty line. Lower income, the increased stress associated with the sole burden of family responsibilities, and fewer supports are thought to contribute to the risk of single parents maltreating their children. In 1998, 23 percent of children lived in households with a single mother, and 4 percent lived in households with a single father.46 A strong, positive relationship between the child and the father, whether he resides in the home or not, contributes to the child's development and may lessen the risk of abuse.

In addition, studies have found that compared to similar non-neglecting families, neglectful families tend to have more children or greater numbers of people living in the household.47 Chronically neglecting families often are characterized by a chaotic household with changing constellations of adult and child figures (e.g. a mother and her children who live on and off with various others, such as the mother's mother, the mother's sister, or a boyfriend).48

The Child Abuse and Father Absence Connection

The rate of child abuse in single parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, which is nearly twice the rate of child abuse in two parent households (15.5 children per 1,000).

An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:

• 77 percent greater risk of being physically abused
• 87 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect
• 165 percent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect
• 74 percent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect
• 80 percent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse
• 120 percent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.

A national survey of nearly 1,000 parents found that 7.4 percent of children who lived with one parent had been sexually abused, compared to only 4.2 percent of children who lived with both biological parents.

Using data from 1,000 students tracked from seventh or eighth grade in 1988 through high school in 1992, researchers determined that only 3.2 percent of the boys and girls who were raised with both biological parents had a history of maltreatment. However, a full 18.6 percent of those in other family situations had been maltreated.

A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49

He is just acknowledging the feds' assessment and trying to raise awareness. So what's the problem?

[excon]

He is just acknowledging the feds' assessment and trying to raise awareness. So what's the problem?

Hello again, Steve:

So, this is an information only bill that requires NO action by anybody?? I didn't send my congressmen to Washington to TEACH me. I'll make myself aware of what I WANT to make myself aware of. I sent 'em there to pass a jobs bill. The feds are fully capable of spreading their truths.

excon

[speechlesstx]

It was from your quote: "Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns."

Geez, I thought you knew Congressmen from both sides of the aisles put out BS bills like this all the time. What, you've never read the Daily Digest? Heck, I thought raising awareness was the in thing for lefties.

[excon]

Hello again:

I can't remember which one of our threads where you were trying to assure me that NOBODY is talking about banning contraception...

But, isn't that exactly what the Blunt amendment was about?

excon

[TUT317]

Let me make it simple . Neither a corporation nor a fetus should be denied their rights without due process . Due process does not mean that the state has the power to wack a baby or a corporation . Is it really a good idea to let government, for example, raid and seize property from businesses without a search and seizure warrant? The Bill of Right ensures that doesn't happen. It can only happen as a right if the corporation has that right.
Let me make this other observation about those ought rights (this is a new concept to me) . The constitution limits the goverment to only enumerated powers. Therefore the rights are also restraints on the government and not the people ...or in the case of corporations ,the persons who assemble to incorporate.

So .....would you feel better if said corporations are PERSONS entitled to their rights ?

Hi Tom,

Now I am confused. I thought you were opposed to 'oligargical' due process and the idea that judges can hand down decisions that impinge one someone's rights. You often cite the Dred Scott case as an example.

What we have are judges addressing 'is' issues over 'ought' issues, ciivil code over common law code, substance instead of process, natural rights over entitlements ; whatever you want to call it all means the same thing.

When it comes to personhood I will be very surprised if the same ridiculous process is not carried out again. The fate of the unborn will be played out by bouncing legal fiction off natural rights.

Tom, I think it will be a long dark day in June before we see an amendment in this regard.

P.S

No, I am NOT saying natural rights are legal fiction. Just thought I would get that out of the way.

Tut

[paraclete]

Tom that is a little sideways the way to ensure rights is to restrain the humans who would otherwise do whatever they felt like. For that purpose we invented governments

[tomder55]

No Clete , Governments are formed to secure rights . But the people also need protection from the government and that is why governments need to be limited in their power.

[TUT317]

No Clete , Governments are formed to secure rights . But the people also need protection from the government and that is why governments need to be limited in their power.

That's only true in a Republican system of government such as your own. As I keep saying there are other forms of governments that are just as demoncratic. For example, parliamentary systems of governments such as Australia and England form a government then rights are secured. They have no need for an overriding civil code.

Your reference to governments in the plural sense suggests that you are talking about governments in general.

Tut

[paraclete]

Yes well I could hardly be talking about your government could I?

[tomder55]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

James Madison 'Federalist 51 '

[excon]

Hello again,

When the threads move on to philosophical matters, my eyes begin to close.. I'm NOT a real philosophical exconvict... I'm NOT criticizing. I'm just saying you lose me..

So, I'd like to bring it back to ground level where I operate. The right wing threat that we face is just TOO important to let devolve into intellectual back and forth..

Does this PREVIEW of the right wing wish list scare ANYONE but me? This is what the right wing will do WHEN and IF they get control of government. If they'll try to ban birth control when they DON'T have a majority, you can guess what they'll do when and if they get control...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again:

I can't remember which one of our threads where you were trying to assure me that NOBODY is talking about banning contraception...

But, isn't that exactly what the Blunt amendment was about?

excon

LOL, seriously? Maybe because I didn't go to college I can still tell the difference between banning something and making someone else pay for their own stuff.

[excon]

I can still tell the difference between banning something and making someone else pay for their own stuff.

Hello Steve:

First they said birth control was bad, but they're not going to DO anything about it.. Then they said a hospital SHOULDN'T have to OFFER it.. Then they said NOBODY should have to offer it...

This all took place over a weeks time, and the Republicans AREN'T even in control. Should they GET control, you're telling me that you can't see what's coming??

Bwa ha ha ha ha.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

First they said birth control was bad, but they're not gonna DO anything about it.. Then they said a hospital SHOULDN'T have to OFFER it.. Then they said NOBODY should have to offer it...

Are you really that disconnected from reality?

[excon]

Are you really that disconnected from reality?

Hello again, Steve:

One of us is.

excon

[speechlesstx]

It ain't me. None of us have said contraceptives should be banned, just that you don't have the right to force me to buy yours.

[excon]

It ain't me. None of us have said contraceptives should be banned, just that you don't have the right to force me to buy yours.

Hello again, Steve:

Look. I got it, that wingers can't foresee the dangers of the things they do. So, let's take another tack.

I understand you don't want to PAY for contraceptives... But, the church HANDS their employees money in the form of their paycheck, and they're going to BUY contraceptives with it... How is THAT not paying for contraceptives??

excon