Mafrun1 <human1500@yahoo.com> wrote:
>hmmm...so much drivel, so little time...
>
>"David Sanders'" <Sandrs-@tquest.com> wrote in message
>news:3F11793C.81678DB3@tquest.com...
>> If a fetus has the right to enter a woman without her consent
>
>Fetuses do not "enter" a women, they are implanted, involuntarily through
>the (normally) voluntary act of the mother.

Implant themselves.

>>then a man must have the same right under the 14th Amendment, that
>> is rape. A nine month rape of a woman.
>
>This is laughable. Only in the fevered imagination of pro-abortionists is
>pregnancy considered rape.

Notice that you do not even try to rebut the statement.

>>If a woman cannot control who or what can enter her body with out her
>consent,
>>then it is legalization of rape of women.
>
>Among other things, yes, agreed. However, pregnancy is not rape.

You're contradicting yourself.

>> The conservatives are on a steam roller, doing their best to squash the
>most basic of
>> fundamental rights, the fundamental right to marry and procreate.
>
>How so? By holding women (and their partners) to the consequences of their
>consensual act?

Then you'd better file criminals charges, arrange for a trial with
jury, and obtain her conviction for her crimes. Anything less and you
may not impose any punishment upon her.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bf006q$ua0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> Mafrun1 <human1500@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >hmmm...so much drivel, so little time...
> >
> >"David Sanders'" <Sandrs-@tquest.com> wrote in message
> >news:3F11793C.81678DB3@tquest.com...
> >> If a fetus has the right to enter a woman without her consent
> >
> >Fetuses do not "enter" a women, they are implanted, involuntarily through
> >the (normally) voluntary act of the mother.
>
> Implant themselves.

as a direct result of an act which the fetus does not initiate or give its
consent.

> >>then a man must have the same right under the 14th Amendment, that
> >> is rape. A nine month rape of a woman.
> >
> >This is laughable. Only in the fevered imagination of pro-abortionists is
> >pregnancy considered rape.
>
> Notice that you do not even try to rebut the statement.

Hmmm... I though the difference would be self-evident. Perhaps a few
definitions will suffice:

from Merram-Webster online

2. sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly
by force or deception -- compare STATUTORY RAPE b : unlawful sexual
intercourse by force or threat other than by a man with a woman

from Findlaw.com's legal dictionary

: unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried out forcibly
or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a person
who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental
illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
(see also statutory rape)
Note: The common-law crime of rape involved a man having carnal knowledge of
a woman not his wife through force and against her will, and required at
least slight penetration of the penis into the vagina. While some states
maintain essentially this definition of rape, most have broadened its scope
esp. in terms of the sex of the persons and the nature of the acts involved.
Marital status is usu. irrelevant. Moreover, the crime is codified under
various names, including first degree sexual assault sexual battery unlawful
sexual intercourse, and first degree sexual abuse.

Now perhaps Mr. Fischer will argue that the fetus engages in "sexual
activity" by implanting itself (which would of course completely ignore the
question of female fetuses "raping" another female) but, I'm sure he would
agree that a fetus does not possess the conscious will to "forcibly or under
threat of injury" rape a women. Rape, like most crimes, requires a conscious
desire or will to act.


> >>If a woman cannot control who or what can enter her body with out her
> >consent,
> >>then it is legalization of rape of women.
> >
> >Among other things, yes, agreed. However, pregnancy is not rape.
>
> You're contradicting yourself.

Since a voluntary act of sexual intercourse is normally "controlled" by a
woman, pregnancy is not imposed on her.

>
> >> The conservatives are on a steam roller, doing their best to squash the
> >most basic of
> >> fundamental rights, the fundamental right to marry and procreate.
> >
> >How so? By holding women (and their partners) to the consequences of
their
> >consensual act?
>
> Then you'd better file criminals charges, arrange for a trial with
> jury, and obtain her conviction for her crimes. Anything less and you
> may not impose any punishment upon her.

Agreed. Would you expect less?

Mafrun1
human1500@yahoo.com

ÂÂ*

Mafrun1 wrote:

> hmmm...so much drivel, so little time...

Humm .. so much crap and so little of anything else.

> ÂÂ*
>
> "David Sanders'" <Sandrs-@tquest.com> wrote in message
> news:3F11793C.81678DB3@tquest.com...
> > If a fetus has the right to enter a woman without her consent
>
> Fetuses do not "enter" a women, they are implanted, involuntarily through
> the (normally) voluntary act of the mother.

You know malaria suffers the same fate, it is implanted into
the human host where it grows, and harms the host, without their
consent. I guess you are also so the rights of malaria?

If as fetus is allowed to stay in a woman without her consent,
then why is it called rape if a male does not stop having sex with
a female if she says stop? As was shown in a recent case.
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> >then a man must have the same right under the 14th Amendment, that
> > is rape. A nine month rape of a woman.
>
> This is laughable. Only in the fevered imagination of pro-abortionists is
> pregnancy considered rape.

Then only in the fevered imagination of an anti-choicer could
a male be charged for rape for staying in a female after she no
longer gave consent. If you want it, you carry it, or you are a
hypocrite, don't make a woman into an incubator slave.
ÂÂ*
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> >If a woman cannot control who or what can enter her body with out her
> consent,
> >then it is legalization of rape of women.
>
> Among other things, yes, agreed. However, pregnancy is not rape.

Then nether is it rape if a male stays in a female after she says stop.
Her consent has stopped and if the male stays in her so what to you?

If a female no longer gives consent for a fetus to be in her, if she
cannot get it out of her, it is rape, something inside of her as a
males penis, without her consent. With both a penis or a fetus
both are only allowed to be their with her consent or it is rape.
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > The conservatives are on a steam roller, doing their best to squash the
> most basic of
> > fundamental rights, the fundamental right to marry and procreate.
>
> How so? By holding women (and their partners) to the consequences of their
> consensual act?

Their sexual act was consensual, that don't mean carrying an unwanted
parasite is by her consent. It is for her and her alone to decide if she
is willing to have a guest live inside her, rent free, using up her bodily
products and risking her life. If it is wanted it is a welcomed
guest, if it is an unwelcome fetus, it is a parasite mooching off her,
and it is not by her consent so it is rape. The unwanted entry inside
her without her consent.
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > These fundamental rights cannot be denied without the trashing
> > of the constitution itself and making some humans into chattel,
> > second class subhumans.
>
> Agreed. Sounds like a perfect description of an aborted fetus.

One problem, a fetus is not a human, if so, it is rape for it to enter
into a woman without her consent. You want it, you carry it.
ÂÂ*
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> >The choice must be the individual's,ÂÂ* on how they go about trying to
> procreate, or to not >procreate.
>
> Agreed. Of course, choices have consequences.

Oh I see, the old prostitute claim, if you have sex you have to
pay for it.

> ÂÂ*
>
> > Sodomy laws deny for the infertile individuals both heterosexual
> > and homosexual the right to choose how they wish to try to
> > procreate to collect semen in whatever way they choose toward
> > artificial insemination and surrogate mothering.
>
> Generally agree, though I really doubt most folks engage in sodomy to
> "collect semen".

And is it your business whether they are or are not at that moment
trying to collect semen, if they cannot it, it don't matter what the propose
is, it is still illegal and their right to try to procreate is denied.

> ÂÂ*
>
> >Anti-abortion laws deny for the individual the right to choose who or what
> >may enter them, and denies them the choice to not procreate.
>
> Nonsense. The choice to engage in actions that most know can result in
> pregnancy is not impacted by "anti-abortion" laws.

And the USA is the very last country that protects its teenagers from
teen pregnancy, by the lack of any explicit sexual education, then
you claim they should know, when it is clear they don't know.

And again you are using the old prostitute claim, if you have sex you
must pay for it.

http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mir...ef/inbirth.htm
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > Marriage is also a fundamental right that cannot be denied.
>
> Really? You may have a right to associate with whomever you please, but not
> all associations are granted the same "status" by the state.

The state has no say over fundamental rights they can only guide the
process a bit.

Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil
rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (USSC+)
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage
is a social relation subject to the State's police power,
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend
in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage
are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment.
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > As it is intersexuals and homosexuals are denied this fundamental
> > right, and the heterosexuals have been given a special right to
> > marry who they choose, and intersexuals and homosexuals are
> > denied this right.
>
> As are underage folks, humans and other animals, etc.

You are proof bigots don't change they only change the group they
hate, the said the very same thing when blacks wanted to marry whites.
And before you say the inevitable, homosexuality is a choice, the ban
on marriage has nothing what so ever to do with the sexual orientation
of those wishing to marry, after all a gay can marry a lesbian. Underage
means no consent to enter a contract, the same with animals, and
bigamy laws were around before polygamy.
ÂÂ*
ÂÂ*
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> >The ban on marriage has nothing to do with
> > the sexual orientation nor any behavior, after all a gay can marry
> > a lesbian. Nothing but the sexual organs they were born with
> > was the deciding factor. The ban on marriage is based solely on
> > the sexual organs one is born with the very same as the race blacks
> > are born with.
>
> Agreed. The states predominately have chosen to prefer couplings between
> adult males and adult females.
>
> > And if you happen to be born with both sexual
> > organs you cannot legally marry anyone, because you cannot pass
> > the very narrow definition of being exclusively a man or a woman.
>
> Hmmm.... can you cite a recent law for me that prohibits marriage by
> "intersexuals".

DOMA and 38 states with DOMA like laws, Kansas Texas and Ohio,
who explicitly prohibit marriage except for XY to XX humans.
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > That is unconstitutional, and forces Lady Justice to lift her blindfold
> > and look into the pants of those that wish to marry to see if the
> > parts do not match.
>
> Hmmm.... when I obtained my marriage license, I was not required to reveal
> my sexual organs. I doubt anyone else is either.

I guess when the doctor turned you over and pronounced you were X
it was just a guess (as is often the case actually)? If they ask then they
looked. It is an unwarented search.

> ÂÂ*
>
> >Justice is to be blind in handing out the
> > equality of the law, it is not to judge the skin color, nor the
> > sexual organs one is born with, before applying the laws equally.
>
> Equal protection does not guarantee indentical outcomes in the law, only
> equal access to the law.

A man and a woman can get married but the same woman cannot
marry a woman, she does not have equal access to the law that the
man has to marry a woman. Where is the equal access to the law?
ÂÂ*
ÂÂ*

Mafrun1 <human1500@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:bf006q$ua0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>> Mafrun1 <human1500@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >hmmm...so much drivel, so little time...
>> >
>> >"David Sanders'" <Sandrs-@tquest.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3F11793C.81678DB3@tquest.com...
>> >> If a fetus has the right to enter a woman without her consent
>> >
>> >Fetuses do not "enter" a women, they are implanted, involuntarily through
>> >the (normally) voluntary act of the mother.
>>
>> Implant themselves.
>
>as a direct result of an act which the fetus does not initiate or give its
>consent.

Give that it doesn't exist it would seem that your statement is
irrelevant nonsense.

>> >>then a man must have the same right under the 14th Amendment, that
>> >> is rape. A nine month rape of a woman.
>> >
>> >This is laughable. Only in the fevered imagination of pro-abortionists is
>> >pregnancy considered rape.
>>
>> Notice that you do not even try to rebut the statement.
>
>Hmmm... I though the difference would be self-evident. Perhaps a few
>definitions will suffice:
>
>from Merram-Webster online
>
>2. sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly
>by force or deception -

"without her consent"
"by force"

I'm somewhat sure you can figure out the correlation.

>from Findlaw.com's legal dictionary
>
>: unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried out forcibly
>or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a person
>who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental
>illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
>(see also statutory rape)

There's that bit about "forcibly" again.

[...]
>Now perhaps Mr. Fischer will argue that the fetus engages in "sexual
>activity" by implanting itself (which would of course completely ignore the
>question of female fetuses "raping" another female) but, I'm sure he would
>agree that a fetus does not possess the conscious will

I don't see anything in the definitions you provided about "conscious
will".

>> >>If a woman cannot control who or what can enter her body with out her
>> >consent,
>> >>then it is legalization of rape of women.
>> >
>> >Among other things, yes, agreed. However, pregnancy is not rape.
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself.
>
>Since a voluntary act of sexual intercourse is normally "controlled" by a
>woman, pregnancy is not imposed on her.

Are you stupid?!? Do you _really_ not know the difference between sex
and pregnancy??? It's as if you tried to justify rape by saying that
the woman agreed to go on a date.

>> >> The conservatives are on a steam roller, doing their best to squash the
>> >most basic of
>> >> fundamental rights, the fundamental right to marry and procreate.
>> >
>> >How so? By holding women (and their partners) to the consequences of their
>> >consensual act?
>>
>> Then you'd better file criminals charges, arrange for a trial with
>> jury, and obtain her conviction for her crimes. Anything less and you
>> may not impose any punishment upon her.
>
>Agreed. Would you expect less?

Abortion opponents generally don't care about law or justice.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

ÂÂ*

Mafrun1 wrote:

> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:bf006q$ua0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> > Mafrun1 <human1500@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >hmmm...so much drivel, so little time...
> > >
> > >"David Sanders'" <Sandrs-@tquest.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3F11793C.81678DB3@tquest.com...
> > >> If a fetus has the right to enter a woman without her consent
> > >
> > >Fetuses do not "enter" a women, they are implanted, involuntarily through
> > >the (normally) voluntary act of the mother.
> >
> > Implant themselves.
>
> as a direct result of an act which the fetus does not initiate or give its
> consent.

And once again the prostitute defense, if they have sex they must pay
for it. Without consent a fetus is parasitical tissue living off the host
without their consent. It is the entry without her consent, to keep it
there is rape. You want it, you carry it. Don't make a woman into a
human incubator, get a light bulb.
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > >>then a man must have the same right under the 14th Amendment, that
> > >> is rape. A nine month rape of a woman.
> > >
> > >This is laughable. Only in the fevered imagination of pro-abortionists is
> > >pregnancy considered rape.
> >
> > Notice that you do not even try to rebut the statement.
>
> Hmmm... I though the difference would be self-evident. Perhaps a few
> definitions will suffice:
>
> from Merram-Webster online
>
> 2. sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent

In other words the entry of a woman without her consent, by force of
law to stop her from having an abortion or by deception of a bunch
of religionuts saying keep it it is a child not a choice.
ÂÂ*

> and chiefly
> by force or deception -- compare STATUTORY RAPE b : unlawful sexual
> intercourse by force or threat other than by a man with a woman

> from Findlaw.com's legal dictionary
>
> : unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried out forcibly
> or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a person
> who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental
> illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
> (see also statutory rape)

How is a fetus gained by unlawful sexual activity (if abortion is illegal
then she is forced to carry it, to abort it would be unlawful sexual activity)
through intercourse and forcibly must carry it under threat of the law
against her will any different than rape?
ÂÂ*

> Note: The common-law crime of rape involved a man having carnal knowledge of
> a woman not his wife through force and against her will, and required at
> least slight penetration of the penis into the vagina. While some states
> maintain essentially this definition of rape, most have broadened its scope
> esp. in terms of the sex of the persons and the nature of the acts involved.
> Marital status is usu. irrelevant. Moreover, the crime is codified under
> various names, including first degree sexual assault sexual battery unlawful
> sexual intercourse, and first degree sexual abuse.
>
> Now perhaps Mr. Fischer will argue that the fetus engages in "sexual
> activity" by implanting itself (which would of course completely ignore the
> question of female fetuses "raping" another female) but,

Rape is rape only because of the consent, even in the case of
a minor giving consent, they do not have that quality and it is
still statutory rape, for a woman to have sex with a boy. It is
all about consent. If the woman does not want the fetus there
it is rape to have it continue there, the entry of a person without
their consent. Whether it is a female doing it or a male, it is still
the entry of a woman without her consent.

Even if the female gave consent for a male to have sex with her,
and in the middle of it, she no longer gives consent for the male to
be there, he must withdraw or it is rape, because then he has
entered without consent, or continued without consent.
It the fetus has a right to enter a woman without her consent so does
a rapist.

> I'm sure he would
> agree that a fetus does not possess the conscious will to "forcibly or under
> threat of injury" rape a women.

It is not the fetus that would say a woman must carry it, it would be adults
that make the law. If they forcibly make her carry an unwanted entry
into her it is rape. Unwanted entry. It the fetus has a right to enter a
woman without her consent so does a rapist.
ÂÂ*

> Rape, like most crimes, requires a conscious
> desire or will to act.

A boy having sex woman and enjoying the hell out of it, is still rape.
The law says he does not have the conscious decision to make that
desire or act.
ÂÂ*
ÂÂ*

> ÂÂ*
>
> > >>If a woman cannot control who or what can enter her body with out her
> > >consent,
> > >>then it is legalization of rape of women.
> > >
> > >Among other things, yes, agreed. However, pregnancy is not rape.
> >
> > You're contradicting yourself.
>
> Since a voluntary act of sexual intercourse is normally "controlled" by a
> woman, pregnancy is not imposed on her.

Again the old prostitution defense, if you have sex you must pay for it.
It the fetus has a right to enter a woman without her consent so does
a rapist.

> ÂÂ*
>
> >
> > >> The conservatives are on a steam roller, doing their best to squash the
> > >most basic of
> > >> fundamental rights, the fundamental right to marry and procreate.
> > >
> > >How so? By holding women (and their partners) to the consequences of
> their
> > >consensual act?
> >
> > Then you'd better file criminals charges, arrange for a trial with
> > jury, and obtain her conviction for her crimes.ÂÂ* Anything less and you
> > may not impose any punishment upon her.
>
> Agreed. Would you expect less?

You are wanting the woman to pay for the crime of having sex with
the punishment of a nine month rape, the entry in her body without
her consent. The old prostitution defense, if you have sex you must
pay for it. It the fetus has a right to enter a woman without her
consent so does a rapist.