Science > Abortion > Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman - legal!
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Hate Feminism" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2004 06:02:03 PM |
| Object: |
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman - legal! |
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act makes the violation
of a woman’s right to receive reproductive health care a federal crime. It
is hard to imagine a worse violation of reproductive rights than forced
abortion. Yet the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals apparently
disagrees.
On 23 January 2004, in Jane Roe II vs. Aware Women Center for Choice,
Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court ruled that an expectant mother can be
aborted by force if the abortionist argues that it is necessary to
“protect the health of the mother.”
The story begins on 29 March 1997, when a young, pregnant mother entered
the Aware Women Center for Choice clinic in Florida. She was there for an
abortion.
Awaiting her was the abortionist, William P. Egherman, who has committed
over 10,000 abortions and who has, perhaps not surprisingly, been addicted
to alcohol and opiates. He began the procedure by attempting to dilate
the woman’s cervix with a 12 millimeter dilator.
"My God, you’re hurting me” the woman began to scream. “You’re killing me,
I’ll never be able to have babies…. Stop!”
The woman had had a change of heart. She did not want an abortion. She
wanted to keep her baby. And she wanted to leave. Immediately. “Stop. Let
me out of here,” she cried.(1)
Instead of respecting the woman’s wishes and stopping the procedure,
Egherman called for assistance. Clinic workers held the woman down as
Egherman, ignoring the woman’s screams, continued to dilate her cervix.
Then he entered the victim with a pair of forceps—“the bear” Ehgerman
called them (2)—and began probing and pulling. He mistakenly pulled out
part of the woman’s intestines. For the woman, said her attorney, Chris
Sapp, it was like being drawn and quartered.
Realizing what he had done, Egherman heavily sedated the woman. Then he
called for an ambulance. He instructed the ambulance to come slowly,
without lights or sirens, in order to give him “time to pack the woman
with gauze.”
Egherman was also worried that his regular flow of business would be
interrupted by “all the hoopla.” “Saturday’s our big day,” he explained,
“and I didn’t want to generate a lot of… any more confusion, any more
panic than was already present at the time. She was loud, and as I said,
she was shrill, and there were a lot of patients who were hearing what was
going on, and the normal rhythm of the day was interrupted. The other
patients must have been terrified, and I didn’t want the ambulance showing
up with all the lights and sirens…”
At the hospital, the woman was operated on and the damage to her internal
organs repaired. Her baby was found to be dead, and was removed.
There the matter would have ended, if not for the intervention of
attorney, and former judge, Chris Sapp. Sapp filed suit on her behalf in
the federal courts, arguing that the abortionist had violated the Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). FACE was passed to guarantee
the right of women to receive reproductive health care. But if a woman had
a right to enter a clinic to get an abortion, Sapp argued, she also has a
right to leave a clinic in order to protect herself and her baby.
In calling for the abortionist to stop the procedure, Sapp argued, the
woman was clearly invoking her rights under the FACE Act. By forcing the
abortion procedure on her, and by preventing her from going immediately to
a hospital where her pregnancy could have been saved, the abortionist
violated her reproductive rights.(3)
Egherman’s defense attorney’s maintained that “if he [Egherman] had to go
back in” in order to protect the woman’s health, then this would not
constitute a violation of the FACE Act. On a summary judgment, the appeals
court agreed, even though the evidence shows that the abortion had
scarcely begun when the woman called for the abortionist to stop the
abortion, and that he went “back in” to perform the abortion against her
will.
According to Sapp, “This ruling does establish a precedent for forced
abortion.” An expectant mother receiving a routine gynecological exam, for
example, could be held down and forcibly aborted. The abortionist would
merely have to argue that the abortion was necessary to protect the
mother’s health or life, and this would not be a violation of the FACE
Act.
PRI has recently learned of another forced abortion in America. A
25-year-old Maryland woman, four months pregnant, changed her mind about
having an abortion after being taken to the procedure room. She ran back
to the clinic entrance where her boyfriend stopped her. You have to get an
abortion, he told her. I’ve already paid for it. Three clinic workers and
the abortionists surrounded the women, sedated her by injection, and then
took her back into the procedure room. After the forced abortion, she
awoke in a closet.
Chris Sapp is determined to fight on. He is prepared to petition the U.S.
Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging that a woman’s right to
say “no” to an abortion, at any point in time, is absolute, and that this
right is found in the FACE Act.
To make a tax-deductible donation to Chris Sapp and his valiant effort to
stop forced abortions in America, please go to PRI’s secure site at
https://pop.org/donate.cfm
Please be sure to write “for Chris Sapp” in one of the three available
address fields on the on-line donation form.
ENDNOTES
1. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D., UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION, AUGUST 28,
2002: JANE ROE, II, PLAINTIFF, VS. AWARE WOMEN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC.,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., PATRICIA B. WINDLE, WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D.,
DEFENDANTS; CASE NO.: 6:99-CV-850-ORL-19KRS.
2. Ibid., Deposition of William Egherman.
3. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Jane Roe
II
vs. Aware Woman Center for Choice, January 23, 2004.
_________
Steve Mosher is the president of Population Research Institute, a
non-profit organization dedicated to debunking the myth that the world is
overpopulated.
__________
© 2004 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, send an email to: Mail to:
JOIN-PRI@Pluto.Sparklist.com or email and say “Add me to your
Weekly Briefing.”
__________
The Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights
abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
27 Feb 2004 11:51:33 PM |
|
|
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hate Feminism" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman |
28 Feb 2004 02:02:52 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
Ray Fischer is the epitomy of chronic abusive trolling stupidity. He cares
nothing for the abortion issue. He's merely a mental defective who finds
satisfaction in spending hours a day for years on end posting his idiocy
to Usenet.
_____________
"[Ray Fischer] seldom has anything to offer beyond personal attack and
rarely can be goaded even into attempting feebly to introduce evidence
or to develop a cogent argument."
Joseph P. Belk in <vavtbv8o63o58cgea2v40kdep6lq2r4ss3@4ax.com>
_____________
Ray Fischer Usenet info:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8f4600d4.0112121055.45454130%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman |
28 Feb 2004 09:34:32 AM |
|
|
Hate Feminism wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
Ray Fischer is the epitomy of chronic abusive trolling stupidity.
Epitomy of stupidity? Oh, the irony.
He cares
nothing for the abortion issue. He's merely a mental defective who finds
satisfaction in spending hours a day for years on end posting his idiocy
to Usenet.
_____________
"[Ray Fischer] seldom has anything to offer beyond personal attack and
rarely can be goaded even into attempting feebly to introduce evidence
or to develop a cogent argument."
Joseph P. Belk in <vavtbv8o63o58cgea2v40kdep6lq2r4ss3@4ax.com>
_____________
Ray Fischer Usenet info:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8f4600d4.0112121055.45454130%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hate Feminism" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman |
28 Feb 2004 03:17:45 PM |
|
|
WHY HATE FEMINISM?
It's best to understand feminist reactionaries in their own words:
___________________________________________________________
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately
10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There
Is One - Is Female.
___________________________________________________________
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of
the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process
that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."
--Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
___________________________________________________________
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw
the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin
establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight
collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become
economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -Roxanne
Dunbar in "Female Liberation"
___________________________________________________________
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape,
originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage
meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but
possession of, or ownership." (Andrea Dworkin)
___________________________________________________________
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because
women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" --
Catherine MacKinnon in "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The
Strange World of Women's Studies"
___________________________________________________________
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare-up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the
bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely
developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. ... The
bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement
vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. ... The
bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed
correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the
more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the
proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple
articles of commerce and industry and labor."
Karl Marx
___________________________________________________________
"No woman should be authorised to stay at home and raise her children.
Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice,
precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make
that one."
Simone de Beauvoir
___________________________________________________________
And Feminists support this:
___________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3382/index.htm
___________________________________________________________
http://www.holylamb.com/abortion1.htm
___________________________________________________________
http://www.operationrescue.org/involved/truthtruck.asp
___________________________________________________________
http://www.operationrescue.org/abortion/babypics.asp
http://www.operationrescue.org/images/front/baby2.jpg
http://www.operationrescue.org/images/front/baby4.jpg
http://www.operationrescue.org/images/front/baby6.jpg
http://www.operationrescue.org/images/front/baby10.jpg
http://www.operationrescue.org/images/front/baby12.jpg
http://www.operationrescue.org/images/front/baby14.jpg
___________________________________________________________
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures_2.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures_3.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures_4.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures_5.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures_6.html
(The above shows the result of the "pro-choice" viewpoint - minus the
slogans.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman |
28 Feb 2004 10:09:11 PM |
|
|
Hate Feminism wrote:
snip - a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with anything other than
the agenda of "Hate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman |
29 Feb 2004 10:01:00 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:4041662C.3A398E27@citlink.net...
Hate Feminism wrote:
snip - a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with anything other than
the agenda of "Hate".
WHERE?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman |
29 Feb 2004 11:04:21 PM |
|
|
Chris <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
Hate Feminism wrote:
snip - a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with anything other than
the agenda of "Hate".
WHERE?
WHO?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 12:00:36 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 12:55:43 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1pat9$1lsh8h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become pregnant.
Forced abortion or any other forced medical procedure is illegal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 08:07:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:55:43 GMT, "avenger" <me@avengers.co.uk> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<PXW%b.4364$TF2.2172@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1pat9$1lsh8h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become pregnant.
A woman can wilfully engage in sex for recreation with no intention of
reproducing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 01:12:42 AM |
|
|
avenger wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1pat9$1lsh8h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become pregnant.
And a man willfully engages in sex for child support.
Forced abortion or any other forced medical procedure is illegal.
As is forced term pregnancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hate Feminism" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 05:14:48 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
avenger wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1pat9$1lsh8h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become pregnant.
And a man willfully engages in sex for child support.
That's not the result of the man's choice: It requires a woman to choose
birth. Thus, any man subject to child support for a child they did not
intend to have have had their reproductive rights abused. Right, feminist?
Forced abortion or any other forced medical procedure is illegal.
As is forced term pregnancy.
Which is utter nonsense. For example: Laws against murder force nothing on
anyone; you're still free to murder if you wish.
Laws do not take away freedom. They merely threaten punishment for certain
actions.
Even if abortion is illegal you can still have an abortion. Since nothing
is "forced," what's the problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 12:35:43 PM |
|
|
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
avenger wrote:
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become pregnant.
And a man willfully engages in sex for child support.
That's not the result of the man's choice: It requires a woman to choose
birth.
But you don't believe in allowing that choice. You think that all sex
is for reproduction. Anybody who has sex agrees to be a parent.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
28 Feb 2004 08:12:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:14:48 +1300, Hate Feminism
<kill.feminism@now.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40407828.4D9F32AE@now.org> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
avenger wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1pat9$1lsh8h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become pregnant.
And a man willfully engages in sex for child support.
That's not the result of the man's choice: It requires a woman to choose
birth. Thus, any man subject to child support for a child they did not
intend to have have had their reproductive rights abused. Right, feminist?
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child and has nothing
to do with any intent on the part of the father. Or any reproductive
rights.
Forced abortion or any other forced medical procedure is illegal.
As is forced term pregnancy.
Which is utter nonsense. For example: Laws against murder force nothing on
anyone; you're still free to murder if you wish.
Absolute nonsense. Laws prevent nothing - but they do punish those
who violate them.
Laws do not take away freedom. They merely threaten punishment for certain
actions.
Even if abortion is illegal you can still have an abortion. Since nothing
is "forced," what's the problem?
Total and absolute nonsense. Learn the meaning of 'deterrence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
29 Feb 2004 10:14:54 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:1681405c9boj8tjinee26a7q6votikjhm9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:14:48 +1300, Hate Feminism
<kill.feminism@now.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40407828.4D9F32AE@now.org> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
avenger wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1pat9$1lsh8h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Hate Feminism <kill.feminism@now.org> wrote:
PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8
About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.
Pro-Liar morons.
It's funny how there's no outrage from them about forced pregnancies.
Pregnancy is normal and a woman wilfully engages in sex to become
pregnant.
And a man willfully engages in sex for child support.
That's not the result of the man's choice: It requires a woman to choose
birth. Thus, any man subject to child support for a child they did not
intend to have have had their reproductive rights abused. Right,
feminist?
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to use
it to support her child?
and has nothing
to do with any intent on the part of the father.
Or any reproductive
rights.
Forced abortion or any other forced medical procedure is illegal.
As is forced term pregnancy.
Which is utter nonsense. For example: Laws against murder force nothing
on
anyone; you're still free to murder if you wish.
Absolute nonsense. Laws prevent nothing - but they do punish those
who violate them.
Laws do not take away freedom. They merely threaten punishment for
certain
actions.
Even if abortion is illegal you can still have an abortion. Since nothing
is "forced," what's the problem?
Total and absolute nonsense. Learn the meaning of 'deterrence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
01 Mar 2004 05:06:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04> wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
01 Mar 2004 08:21:31 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04> wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
02 Mar 2004 05:46:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04> wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
02 Mar 2004 10:58:40 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04> wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
02 Mar 2004 06:49:23 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in news:qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
i don't recall seeing that. can you be precise?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
02 Mar 2004 02:31:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:58:40 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04> wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
It is paid to the parent, man or woman, who has the legal obligation
to support the child. Since child support can be a tax issue this is
carefully limited and interpreted by the courts. If the person
receiving child support does not have the legal obligation to support
the child this would be grounds for ending the payments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
02 Mar 2004 03:35:32 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hkr940loq4rikjbdqlhjp1vckcugesaotj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:58:40 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04>
wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation
to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
It is paid to the parent, man or woman, who has the legal obligation
to support the child. Since child support can be a tax issue this is
carefully limited and interpreted by the courts. If the person
receiving child support does not have the legal obligation to support
the child this would be grounds for ending the payments.
I know MANY folks who have a legal obligation to support their child, yet
there is legally NO "child support" payments being made to them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
02 Mar 2004 03:50:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:35:32 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <E771c.12338$h23.2787@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hkr940loq4rikjbdqlhjp1vckcugesaotj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:58:40 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04>
wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation
to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
It is paid to the parent, man or woman, who has the legal obligation
to support the child. Since child support can be a tax issue this is
carefully limited and interpreted by the courts. If the person
receiving child support does not have the legal obligation to support
the child this would be grounds for ending the payments.
I know MANY folks who have a legal obligation to support their child, yet
there is legally NO "child support" payments being made to them.
So? That was not the discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
03 Mar 2004 12:09:35 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mb0a4011vm99egti0ospb58ok0i0hucjjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:35:32 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <E771c.12338$h23.2787@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hkr940loq4rikjbdqlhjp1vckcugesaotj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:58:40 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04>
wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal
obligation
to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation
to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
It is paid to the parent, man or woman, who has the legal obligation
to support the child. Since child support can be a tax issue this is
carefully limited and interpreted by the courts. If the person
receiving child support does not have the legal obligation to support
the child this would be grounds for ending the payments.
I know MANY folks who have a legal obligation to support their child, yet
there is legally NO "child support" payments being made to them.
So?
So it demonstrates that HAVING a legal obligation to support the child is
just as much grounds as NOT having a legal obligation to support the child,
when it comes to not receiving (ending) so called "child support". Again,
why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to use it to
support her child?
That was not the discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
03 Mar 2004 01:19:21 AM |
|
|
In article <zFe1c.13588$h23.1432@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mb0a4011vm99egti0ospb58ok0i0hucjjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:35:32 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <E771c.12338$h23.2787@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hkr940loq4rikjbdqlhjp1vckcugesaotj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:58:40 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04>
wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal
obligation
to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal obligation
to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
It is paid to the parent, man or woman, who has the legal obligation
to support the child. Since child support can be a tax issue this is
carefully limited and interpreted by the courts. If the person
receiving child support does not have the legal obligation to support
the child this would be grounds for ending the payments.
I know MANY folks who have a legal obligation to support their child, yet
there is legally NO "child support" payments being made to them.
So?
So it demonstrates that HAVING a legal obligation to support the child is
just as much grounds as NOT having a legal obligation to support the child,
when it comes to not receiving (ending) so called "child support". Again,
why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to use it to
support her child?
I guess I still don¹t see what you are trying to say. People do have a
legal obligation to support their children. The money that is given to
the custodial parent is an amount that is determined to be what it will
take to maintain the childs lifestyle at where it would be if the
couple were still married.
That was not the discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
03 Mar 2004 10:25:45 AM |
|
|
"David Barnes" <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:020320042319217176%dbarnes111@yahoo.com...
In article <zFe1c.13588$h23.1432@fed1read06>, Chris <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mb0a4011vm99egti0ospb58ok0i0hucjjj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:35:32 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <E771c.12338$h23.2787@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:hkr940loq4rikjbdqlhjp1vckcugesaotj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:58:40 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <qe31c.11127$h23.8240@fed1read06>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a0t84057kkp0ppq385a9ccdduubm3bqs3r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:21:31 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <SdS0c.24637$aZ3.8759@fed1read04>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:d666409n65bn1df5eh3g3b7b68f12equeq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:54 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com>
in
alt.abortion with message-id
<5Oy0c.22564$aZ3.16286@fed1read04>
wrote:
Wrong. Child support is for the benefit of the child
Then why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal
obligation
to
use
it to support her child?
It is paid to the custodial parent who has the legal
obligation
to
support the child.
Non sequitur. Care to answer my question?
I did.
Yes you did, with a non sequitur.
It is paid to the parent, man or woman, who has the legal
obligation
to support the child. Since child support can be a tax issue this
is
carefully limited and interpreted by the courts. If the person
receiving child support does not have the legal obligation to
support
the child this would be grounds for ending the payments.
I know MANY folks who have a legal obligation to support their child,
yet
there is legally NO "child support" payments being made to them.
So?
So it demonstrates that HAVING a legal obligation to support the child
is
just as much grounds as NOT having a legal obligation to support the
child,
when it comes to not receiving (ending) so called "child support".
Again,
why is the money paid to the WOMAN who has NO legal obligation to use it
to
support her child?
I guess I still don¹t see what you are trying to say. People do have a
legal obligation to support their children.
That's just it; how is paying cash to some woman "supporting" ANY child?
Additionally, since the woman makes the sole desicion as to whether or not
such child will legally exist, why should the man be forced to pay her $$$
for HER SOLE choice?
The money that is given to
the custodial parent is an amount that is determined to be what it will
take to maintain the childs lifestyle at where it would be if the
couple were still married.
"If" is tantamount to "assume"; and we all know what "assume" means.
That was not the discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
03 Mar 2004 12:55:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:25:45 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Hn1c.14695$h23.13325@fed1read06> wrote:
That's just it; how is paying cash to some woman "supporting" ANY child?
Support means to provide the items (food, shelter, clothing, and so
forth) needed to keep the child alive until maturity (generally it's
18th birthday). In our society such items are assigned a money value
and rather than requiring a pig, a cow, a shirt and pants, and a hut
every week a certain amount of money is required to be paid. Since a
child cannot be expected to make such purchases itself a parent has
this responsibility.
Additionally, since the woman makes the sole desicion as to whether or not
such child will legally exist, why should the man be forced to pay her $$$
for HER SOLE choice?
That is not an issue. If the child exists it must be supported by
law, and the parents are required by society to do this in order to
prevent the society as a whole from having the expense.
The money that is given to
the custodial parent is an amount that is determined to be what it will
take to maintain the childs lifestyle at where it would be if the
couple were still married.
"If" is tantamount to "assume"; and we all know what "assume" means.
No it is not. The lifestyle is to be maintained as the same level
that would be available if the family unit still existed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
03 Mar 2004 10:06:28 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:36ac4098mggngai75qh88jq10hi1orqca8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:25:45 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Hn1c.14695$h23.13325@fed1read06> wrote:
That's just it; how is paying cash to some woman "supporting" ANY child?
Support means to provide the items (food, shelter, clothing, and so
forth) needed to keep the child alive until maturity (generally it's
18th birthday). In our society such items are assigned a money value
and rather than requiring a pig, a cow, a shirt and pants, and a hut
every week a certain amount of money is required to be paid. Since a
child cannot be expected to make such purchases itself a parent has
this responsibility.
Only problem is paying cash to a woman amounts to nothing more than paying
her cash. It says absolutely NOTHING about supporting a child.
Additionally, since the woman makes the sole desicion as to whether or
not
such child will legally exist, why should the man be forced to pay her
$$$
for HER SOLE choice?
That is not an issue. If the child exists it must be supported by
law, and the parents are required by society to do this in order to
prevent the society as a whole from having the expense.
Let me rephrase my question. Why should ANYBODY be forced to pay her money?
The money that is given to
the custodial parent is an amount that is determined to be what it will
take to maintain the childs lifestyle at where it would be if the
couple were still married.
"If" is tantamount to "assume"; and we all know what "assume" means.
No it is not. The lifestyle is to be maintained as the same level
that would be available if the family unit still existed.
Keyword: IF.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
04 Mar 2004 05:38:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:06:28 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <ZXx1c.15214$h23.967@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:36ac4098mggngai75qh88jq10hi1orqca8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:25:45 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Hn1c.14695$h23.13325@fed1read06> wrote:
That's just it; how is paying cash to some woman "supporting" ANY child?
Support means to provide the items (food, shelter, clothing, and so
forth) needed to keep the child alive until maturity (generally it's
18th birthday). In our society such items are assigned a money value
and rather than requiring a pig, a cow, a shirt and pants, and a hut
every week a certain amount of money is required to be paid. Since a
child cannot be expected to make such purchases itself a parent has
this responsibility.
Only problem is paying cash to a woman amounts to nothing more than paying
her cash. It says absolutely NOTHING about supporting a child.
The cash paid is reimbursement if you will, for part of the expenses
involved in raising a child.
Additionally, since the woman makes the sole desicion as to whether or
not
such child will legally exist, why should the man be forced to pay her
$$$
for HER SOLE choice?
That is not an issue. If the child exists it must be supported by
law, and the parents are required by society to do this in order to
prevent the society as a whole from having the expense.
Let me rephrase my question. Why should ANYBODY be forced to pay her money?
Because someone must pay the expense of raising a child and society
has said that someone must be the parents.
You know all of this - you simply don't like the situation. Too bad.
The money that is given to
the custodial parent is an amount that is determined to be what it will
take to maintain the childs lifestyle at where it would be if the
couple were still married.
"If" is tantamount to "assume"; and we all know what "assume" means.
No it is not. The lifestyle is to be maintained as the same level
that would be available if the family unit still existed.
Keyword: IF.
Not as far as the child is concerned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy) |
04 Mar 2004 10:16:41 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:e45e40p22bolaeb3svnmv4u202tu8hsjim@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:06:28 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <ZXx1c.15214$h23.967@fed1read06> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:36ac4098mggngai75qh88jq10hi1orqca8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:25:45 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <5Hn1c.14695$h23.13325@fed1read06> wrote:
That's just it; how is paying cash to some woman "supporting" ANY
child?
Support means to provide the items (food, shelter, clothing, and so
forth) needed to keep the child alive until maturity (generally it's
18th birthday). In our society such items are assigned a money value
and rather than requiring a pig, a cow, a shirt and pants, and a hut
every week a certain amount of money is required to be paid. Since a
child cannot be expected to make such purchases itself a parent has
this responsibility.
Only problem is paying cash to a woman amounts to nothing more than
paying
her cash. It says absolutely NOTHING about supporting a child.
The cash paid is reimbursement if you will, for part of the expenses
involved in raising a child.
1. How can they be certain that the funds do not exceed the expenses; if
any?
2. Why must ANYBODY "reimburse" the woman.
3. There are women throughout the world that don't spend ANY money on
raising their children. What's being reimbursed?
Additionally, since the woman makes the sole desicion as to whether or
not
such child will legally exist, why should the man be forced to pay her
$$$
for HER SOLE choice?
That is not an issue. If the child exists it must be supported by
law, and the parents are required by society to do this in order to
prevent the society as a whole from having the expense.
Let me rephrase my question. Why should ANYBODY be forced to pay her
money?
Because someone must pay the expense of raising a child
Petitio principii. Also, a child can be raised without spending one thin
dime. It happens regularly all around the world.
and society
has said that someone must be the parents.
If that were true, then fathers of sperm bank children and adopted children,
as well as fathers who are married to the woman would have to pay her money
too. But this is NOT the case. Assuming money must be spent to raise the
child, how does handing a woman cash cause her to spend ANY of it on her
children?
You know all of this - you simply don't like the situation. Too bad.
Assuming you are correct; I don't see the relevance.
The money that is given to
the custodial parent is an amount that is determined to be what it
will
take to maintain the childs lifestyle at where it would be if the
couple were still married.
"If" is tantamount to "assume"; and we all know what "assume" means.
No it is not. The lifestyle is to be maintained as the same level
that would be available if the family unit still existed.
Keyword: IF.
Not as far as the child is concerned.
As far as ANYBODY is concerned. You are using a hypothesis contrary to fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
