i got this in the email from okayplayer BlackAdder (HEY! :)), check this out...
Ryan



Hey People!! Please don't sleep on staying involved. Even though many people are disillusioned, there are lives at stake (including yours). many people think that reproductive rights or choice ends and begins with the abortion issue. as queers, people or color, women, immigrants and youth our rights to our own bodies have historically and contemporarily challenged and controlled by the most autocratic and facist elements of the State. forced sterilization, experimentation on our bodies, environmental racism and sexism, all these tie in to rights to control your own body. This Act below is scary and dangerous. Protect yourselves and protect others!! Read on:

Peace and Blessings,

Shante aka BlackAdder



----Original Message Follows----
This issue is monumental, and I figured I should send this to my friends across
the states instead of just here in NYC... I already know how Hillary and
Chuck are going to vote (I hope).
The first link below is to the actual text of the bill that is currently
before the Senate (S. 480). The second link is an ACLU action form,
allowing you to input your zip code and send an email, fax, or letter to
your senator.
On April 26th the House of Representatives passed the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act by a vote of 252 to 172. The bill establishes criminal
penalties for causing harm or death to an "unborn child" during an assault
on a pregnant woman and represents a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe v.
Wade by establishing rights for the fetus. The bill now moves to the Senate
where it faces stiff opposition. However, Bush has signaled he supports the
measure, effectively upping the ante in the high stakes struggle to preserve
reproductive freedom.
For more information and the text of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00480:
For the ACLU Action mail form:
http://www.acluaction.org/aclu/mail/confirm
I hope you're all doing fabulously. Take care.
-Hillary







manufactured beef/cliques/bloated self-importance are wearing thin
--bluetiger

Black is beautiful..dont you think?

a bill that protects lives?


Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

it was shot down. Protecting the unborn , is cool, but when you start by giving them the same rights as born folks a lot of different troubles will brew. If they start protecting the rights of fetuses they CAN try to regulate who can parent and who can't. The woman who smokes or drink can be arrested for harming her fetus , a drug addict can also be arrested for harming the fetus. They would also try to eliminate Roe vs Wade if abortion is ruled to cause harm to a fetus , then abortions can be outlawed.
These ideas seem far-fetched, they are not, this can and will happen if this law is passed.

>The woman
>who smokes or drink can
>be arrested for harming her
>fetus , a drug addict
>can also be arrested for
>harming the fetus.

I don't see anything wrong with arresting a woman who purposely harms her unborn child by smoking, drinking, or doing drugs. To me, that's just plain sick.

Who rights prevail the unborn fetus or the woman ?

Well, let's look at legal precedent. I can't think of any instances where one person has the right to harm another person.

If we look at instance such as this, it's the mother's right to harm vs. the fetus's right to protection. Can you think of any instance where someone has the right to harm someone else?

The main issue here is whether a fetus has rights. Because if it does, then the fetus's rights should ultimately prevail.

>Who rights prevail the unborn fetus
>or the woman ?

can the fetus survive on its own physically?
can the fetus vote?



↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

Are these the traits that constitute a person?
Does anyone know if the supreme court has determined what traits constitute a person?
Should the supreme court be the authority on what makes a person a person? (because ultimately they decide if a fetus is a person)

can a paraplegic?

can a newborn?
can a one-month-old?
can a one-year-old?
can some senior citizens?

how odd a criteria you pose........

because the court determines such..... you aren't a full fledged rights having citizen in the US unless you are 18.....(thus the vote)....a fetus also cannot exit without help outside the mother's womb...the rest of what you mentioned were all possibilities of born individuals....the fetus is by definition, unborn.....


↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

>because the court determines such..... you
>aren't a full fledged rights
>having citizen in the US
>unless you are 18.....

dunno about that. are there not SOME rights you have prior to that (the whole "free speech" thing, for example)

in this instance i'm not sure if we're talking about the "totality" of rights....i thought were were simply talking about rights in the context of who's "rights" take precedence if an unborn chil is determined to even have any

>....a fetus also cannot exit
>without help outside the mother's
>womb...the rest of what you
>mentioned were all possibilities of
>born individuals....

but now you're adding criteria. i thought the qualification(s) were voting and the ability to "survive on it's own" (and by the way this was the criteria you gave for "person-hood" anyway, not just criteria for rights -- which you also brought up later to tie back into the whole "right of a fetus" thing)

>>because the court determines such..... you
>>aren't a full fledged rights
>>having citizen in the US
>>unless you are 18.....
>
>dunno about that. are there not
>SOME rights you have prior
>to that (the whole "free
>speech" thing, for example)

some..not all....

>in this instance i'm not sure
>if we're talking about the
>"totality" of rights....i thought were
>were simply talking about rights
>in the context of who's
>"rights" take precedence if an
>unborn chil is determined to
>even have any

which brings me back to this: what rights can a fetus possibly have?!?

>>....a fetus also cannot exit
>>without help outside the mother's
>>womb...the rest of what you
>>mentioned were all possibilities of
>>born individuals....
>
>but now you're adding criteria. i
>thought the qualification(s) were voting
>and the ability to "survive
>on it's own" (and by
>the way this was the
>criteria you gave for "person-hood"
>anyway, not just criteria for
>rights -- which you also
>brought up later to tie
>back into the whole "right
>of a fetus" thing)

I qualified my answer based on your reply in order to (hopefully) make it as clear as possible...






↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

>which brings me back to this:
>what rights can a fetus
>possibly have?!?

the right to live?

considering that the fetus/child had no part in the circumstances of it's birth (whatever they migh be), is it really okay to say "i'mma kill it because i want to"?

at the very basic level this seems to be the question.

now where you go from there (should the mother be "forced" to carry this child against her will? does the father have any say so? will the wrong (killing the child) make the circumstances any better?) is where the water gets all muddy...

back to "the basic level question", if you think SO -- ive asked this before -- where is the line where your rights/desires as a parent are outweighed by the "rights" of that child? why eliminate this line AFTER birth? what if, three months later you decide you shouldn't have to be "forced" to raise this kid, so you put him in a dumpster? or what happens when they turn 13 and get all teenage-defiant, is it now cool to do that oh-not-so-funny bill cosby "i brought you in, i'mma take you out deal?

if viability/self-sufficiency is the line then does THAT apply in all cases too? THAT's where i was taking the issue.....

>>which brings me back to this:
>>what rights can a fetus
>>possibly have?!?
>
>the right to live?

not necessarily.....I hold that its the parents' decision
>
>considering that the fetus/child had no
>part in the circumstances of
>it's birth (whatever they migh
>be), is it really okay
>to say "i'mma kill it
>because i want to"?
>
>at the very basic level this
>seems to be the question.

right....I think it is okay (but then again that's up to the parents)

>now where you go from there
>(should the mother be "forced"
>to carry this child against
>her will? does the father
>have any say so? will
>the wrong (killing the child)
>make the circumstances any better?)
>is where the water gets
>all muddy...

very muddy...I think the father should have *some* say so...the mother should not be forced against her will...and this ain't a perfect world so I don't think we are ain the position to apply our "perfect" answers/solutions

>back to "the basic level question",
>if you think SO --
>ive asked this before --
>where is the line where
>your rights/desires as a parent
>are outweighed by the "rights"
>of that child? why eliminate
>this line AFTER birth? what
>if, three months later you
>decide you shouldn't have to
>be "forced" to raise this
>kid, so you put him
>in a dumpster? or what
>happens when they turn 13
>and get all teenage-defiant, is
>it now cool to do
>that oh-not-so-funny bill cosby "i
>brought you in, i'mma take
>you out deal?

I think that viable right-to-life rights occur after birth & from then on....prior to birth-no-there is still a choice (IMO)

>if viability/self-sufficiency is the line then
>does THAT apply in all
>cases too? THAT's where i
>was taking the issue.....

agree with your taking issue....my take is just from the pre-birth standpoint....although there are instances where people have forcibly put the elderly & infirm in "homes" against their will...so that issue is definitely out there in the open




↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

through mdern technology a parapalegic can live an active life on his/her own. They also can vote.

if "modern technology" is doing the work, are you really doing it on your own?

i mean: sit one up in a chair and let him/her go for wat they know.

(and i think you know what i mean and are being glib)

to be funny :D

doesn't anyone's "rights" cease at the point where they harm someone else (except for the "right" to defend yourself against harm/attack)?

.

so why don't i have the right to kill someone?

not saying i support the bill, because i DO think it's a backdoor way to overturn roe v wade, but if this is going to get into a discussion of rights, let's be serious, you don't have the right to do ANYTHING you want. that's what laws are for.

and somebody (maybe you, maybe not) brought up a woman's rights to smoke, drink, or do drugs while she's pregnant.

last i checked, nobody had the right to use controlled substances under any circumstances.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

is legal for of-age adults....regardless of potential maternal condition.....

the bill is a blatant attempt to backdoor Roe v. Wade by assigning the unborn with rights similar to a full-fledged citizen...and making it punishable to harm the fetus in anyway...abortion could then be legally equated to murder, so women & their doctors would get either life in jail or the death penalty.....


↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

the aforementioned post said "smoking, drinking, and doing drugs" or something to that direct effect. smoking and drinking are legal, and a woman's right, though she's stupid if she does it while pregnant.

but i was referring to drugs, i.e. illegal drugs. no pregnant woman has the right to sniff cocaine or shoot heroin. no AMERICAN has the right to sniff cocaine or shoot heroin.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

the real question is if the fetus should have rights at all?

↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

It is not illegal to use drugs. It is illegal to possess illegal substances or to drive under the influence of illegal substances, but not illegal to have ingested these substances. For example, if an officer comes to your house right after you've smoked crack, but there is not a trace of crack in your house, or any illegal paraphanelia, then he can't arrest you for anything, even if it's obvious you're high on crack. That's the law.


>no pregnant woman has the right
>to sniff cocaine or shoot
>heroin. no AMERICAN has
>the right to sniff cocaine
>or shoot heroin.

caught me on the technicality. you know what i was driving at though.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

this bill is an end-around, and a blatent one at theat. ya gotta watch them snakes

but the whole "it can't function by itself" arguement leaves me a bit cold also because when extended fully, that train of thought could lead to situations just as shaky as abortion.

tangled web folks....tangled web

>that train
>of thought could lead to
>situations just as shaky as
>abortion.



Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

since your elderly mom can't function by herself she loses her "rights"

since your three year old can't fend for himself, you as a parent should be able to beat him/her silly

since your newborn is unable to fend for themself, they shouldn't have any "rights" beyond those who provide are willing to determine/give
--

extreme examples? yes. but ya gotta watch these things. once a precedent is set, a foundation is there to build upon (part of why this bill is dangerous)

>is legal for of-age adults....regardless of
>potential maternal condition.....


but it shouldn't be.

not everyone subscribes to your "moral" or "health" authority...
even if I dislike that mothers-to-be might engage in questionable and unhealthy acts, its not my place or the government's to decide that for her.....


↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

shouldn't be illegal for them to smoke and drink, but it shouldn't be illegal for the rest of us to slap the shit outta them when they do it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

and with the probable new law, you'll be injuring a fetus .

just hard enough so they drop the bottle and we knock the cig outta their mouths. fetus won't get hurt, he'll be cheering all creepy-like, like in that minivan commercial with the ultrasound.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

>and with the probable new law,
>you'll be injuring a fetus

that scenario is partly one of the "motives" behind the bill....the legislator wanted to make it criminally punishable if for example, a driver hit & killed a mother-to-be, then the driver would get two murder charges.....

kill em all (c) metallica

and tinky....no need to slap them when we can voice our opinions to the dumbass mother...community pressure would be more effective than violence

↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

>the dumbass mother..

she's dumb for smoking/drinking while pregnant, but "exercising her rights" if she decides to kill her baby? if it's a "non-rights having" fetus, why should we be able to "force" her not to smoke/drink if that's her "choice"?

>...community
>pressure would be more effective

isn't that exactly what the bill is trying to instantiate? at least on a very high level?

>>the dumbass mother..
>
>she's dumb for smoking/drinking while pregnant,
>but "exercising her rights" if
>she decides to kill her
>baby? if it's a "non-rights
>having" fetus, why should we
>be able to "force" her
>not to smoke/drink if that's
>her "choice"?

IMO she's dumb depending on the circumstances:
if she's trying to have the child, and she chooses to use drugs, then she's a dumbass
if she's having an abortion because she/he didn't use protection, then she is a dumbass....its still her right to be a dumbass though


>>...community
>>pressure would be more effective
>
>isn't that exactly what the bill
>is trying to instantiate? at
>least on a very high
>level?

legal authority given by government vs. community........not quite the same (I see where you are going though)





↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

although my morals may coincide with my feelings on this issue, my take on this is shaped by legal precedent rather than my morals precisely because of arguments such as yours.

>not everyone subscribes to your "moral"
>or "health" authority...
>even if I dislike that mothers-to-be
>might engage in questionable and
>unhealthy acts, its not my
>place or the government's to
>decide that for her.....
>
>
>? yours
>
>"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab
>
>
>? & ©
>
>*May is Hate Prince Month at
>OKP*

go ahead.....


↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

post #5

a fetus has no rights.....the intended bill is trying to establish them though


↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

™ & ©

*May is Hate Prince Month at OKP*

CONWAY, South Carolina (AP) -- A woman was convicted Wednesday and sentenced to 12 years in prison for killing her unborn child by using crack cocaine during her pregnancy.

The verdict marks the first time a woman in the United States has been found guilty of homicide for taking drugs during pregnancy, an advocate for the defendant claimed.

The case also opens the door for prosecutors to charge women with neglect under other conditions, such as smoking during pregnancy, said Wyndi Anderson, executive director of the South Carolina Advocates for Pregnant Women.

A jury found Regina McKnight, 24, guilty after deliberating just 15 minutes. She could have faced a life sentence. McKnight's lawyers said they will appeal.

The state Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that a viable fetus is they took drugs after their unborn child was able to live outside the womb.

McKnight's baby was stillborn in 1999 at 35 weeks. She is the mother of three other children and is two months pregnant.

"The state needed to press forward because a child ended up dead," prosecutor Bert von Herrmann said. "She smoked cocaine as much and as often as she could ... if that's not extreme indifference to life, I don't know what is."

But defense attorney Orrie West said the brief deliberations indicate the jury punished McKnight because she was a drug addict.

"Given almost all of the trial involved complex medical testimony, I don't think the jury weighed it like they should," West said.

The defense said an inflammation of the placenta, which could have at least two causes other than drug use, killed the fetus.

This was McKnight's second trial; a mistrial was declared in January after two jurors used the Internet to look up medical information.

i'm a lot more vulnerable to any kind of violence. hell, i could cause damage if i just jumped up and down enough. my energy is all flowin into this babymakin thing. it's "like havin a 40 lb weight on your spine."

BUT
even though i do get some kinda comfort outta that law, my right to decide what happenss with my own body is more important. pregnancy is a big thing, can't be taken as lightly as sex can be and is.


==**peace**==

"The logic of divide and rule is still valid today." Capleton

DomePoem Poets; Vibe Nation; One ppl under the spoken word