On 22 Oct 2003 19:52:27 -0700,
IBen Getiner <lappcatt@msn.com> wrote:
reptile944@aol.com (Reptile944) wrote:
lappcatt@msn.com (IBen Getiner) writes:
But that's the whole point, Terry.
To them, an abortion DOESN'T LOOK
LIKE ANYTHING. They see it as
something between a woman and her
doctor, and since everything happens
behind closed doors, it might as
well of NEVER HAPPENED.
That's the way they want to keep it,
too... as we see in everything they
do. From their all-out effort to
discredit these photographic
testimonies to their relentless
attempts to stock the courts. They
are ruthless, crude, they stick
together and above all... they have
no shame. Reptile brains, one and
all. They cannot be reasoned with.
They can only be defeated in the
political arena.
It sure is a shocker to learn that
there really are people walking
around.... looking just like you or
I... who have no more compassion
for a child than they do a beetle
that has found it's way under their
foot. 'If it's in my way, then just
step on it'.
So you finally get your way, some
time in the near future, and abortion
becomes "illegal." What then? What
do you expect to happen? I really
want to know, because I just want to
see what you "pie in the sky" types
think is going to go down.
I think I'm going to start collecting
the answers to this question, and then
at a later date, lay em all out there,
so that readers can see just how
assinine that kind of wishful thinking
IS, in terms of the world we are living
in, here, NOW, today. This 2003, not
1953.
The next thing I'd like to see would
be mandatory sterilization of any woman
who gets pregnant out of wedlock and
needs to lean of the Gov (where she'd
originally be looking for an abortion).
And the man who put her that way.
So lets get this straight. You think that
women who get pregnant out of wedlock can
never be trusted again with the right of
reproduction.
In fact, you feel that women who get
pregnant out of wedlock, and men who
help women get pregnant out of wedlock,
are "mentally defective". They can't be
trusted with managing their own lives,
they are "mentally defective".
Correct?
If not, then at least you feel that women
who get pregnant out of wedlock and then
go to the government to be taken care of
at public expense, need to be sterilized,
correct? That does seem to be a fairly
literal restatement of your intent after
you have succeeded in banning abortion.
"Sterilize women who get pregnant out
of wedlock and then have to lean on
the government." Thats the same thing
as saying "sterilize women and men who
are being maintained wholly or in part
by public expense," right?
That's what I'd like to see next. A little
accountablility. Straighten things up a bit.
=============================================
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
Click on "Sterilization Laws" (requires
Macromedia Flash plugin)
=============================================
Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one
of Harry Laughlin's first major projects at
the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he
published a Model Eugenical Sterilization
Law that proposed to authorize sterilization
of the "socially inadequate" -- people
supported in institutions or
***"maintained wholly or in part ***
*** by public expense"***.
The law encompassed the "feebleminded,
insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate,
diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, and
dependent" -- including "orphans,
ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and
paupers." By the time the Model Law was
published in 1914, twelve states had
enacted sterilization laws.
....
....
By 1924...Virginia passed a Eugenical
Sterilization Act based on Laughlin's
Model Law. It was adopted as part of
a cost-saving strategy to relieve the
tax burden in a state where public
facilities for the "insane" and
"feebleminded" had experienced rapid
growth.
....
....
Borrowing from Laughlin's Model Law, the
German Nazi government adopted a law in
1933 that provided the legal basis for
sterilizing more than 350,000 people.
Laughlin proudly published a translation
of the German "Law for the Prevention of
Defective Progeny" in "The Eugenical
News". In 1936, Laughlin was awarded an
honorary degree from the University of
Heidelberg as a tribute for his work in
"the science of racial cleansing."
=============================================
=============================================
"[Sterilization could] be applied to an
ever widening circle of *social discards*,
beginning always with the criminal, the
diseased and the insane, and extending
gradually to types which may be called
weaklings rather than defectives, and
perhaps ultimately to worthless race types."
-- From "The Passing of the Great Race"
by Madison Grant, co-founder American
Eugenics Society, 1926.
=============================================
It would involve people giving up some of
their 'freedoms'.
============================================
SKINNER V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/316/535.html
============================================
"We are dealing here with legislation
which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation
are fundamental to the very existence
and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle,
farreaching and devastating effects. In
evil or reckless hands it can cause races
or types which are inimical to the dominant
group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law
touches. Any experiment which the State
conducts is to his irreparable injury.
He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."
============================================
And you want to *copy* the American Eugenics
Society and Nazi Germany by sterilizing women
who are "maintained wholly or in part by
public expense"?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
the most important part of any free society
is to allow the idiots to speak freely, so
that everyone else can know they are idiots
for *certain* and not /speculate in doubt/
about their idiocy.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already stated
that you can't sterilize someone who has
*committed a crime*. IBen thinks it can
be made legal to sterilize someone who
*has not committed a crime*, who has in
fact *continued a pregnancy to term*, a
concept he claims to want to *encourage*
more women to do.
But then, we're talking about IBen's
totalitarian regime required to ban
abortion. He's already gotten rid of
the democracy that has consistently,
throughout history, legalized abortion.
Under IBen's fantasy totalitarian regime,
sterilization for just about *anything*
is possible.
I bet IBen can't name a single democracy
which has completely banned abortion.
Anywhere, at any point in history.
Whereas one can come up with any number
of totalitarian regimes which have
successfully and completely banned
abortion. A few examples include:
Spanish Inquisition Spain.
Stalinist Russia.
Nazi Germany.
Communist Romania.
Taliban Afghanistan.
and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
If IBen wants a government like theirs
so bad, I say he should live there.
Here, we want a representative democratic
republic, and those kinds of governments
always legalize abortion, for as long as
they remain true representative democratic
republics. When they start not to
represent the people, they ban abortion.
Its as simple as that, yet IBen refuses
to learn from history.
He already copies the Eugenicists in his
bid to try and *ignore* as many lessons
from history as possible!
.
|
