This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Tennessee Woman Sentenced To Jail For Not Mowing Her Lawn
Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The trend of average U.S. citizens being incarcerated by overzealous judges and prosecutors within the police state formerly known as America continues with reckless abandon. In fact, these sorts of cases are becoming so commonplace I simply cannot keep up with all of them. The following story is a perfect followup to my piece earlier today, which shows how American public school students are being arrested or harassed by police for the most minor of infractions, such as wearing too much perfume, sharing a classmates’ chicken nuggets, throwing an eraser or chewing gum.
If you are an adult American slave, you can add not mowing your lawn to the list of prison-worthy crimes in the police state.
If you are a resident of Lenoir City, Tennessee, you might want to remember to mow your lawn — otherwise, you will be spending the night in jail.
Karen Holloway just spent six hours in a jail cell for failing to maintain her yard in accordance with the standards set by the city.
The saga began last summer, when Holloway was sent a citation for her overgrown grass and shrubbery. Holloway, who works a full-time job and has two children living at home, a husband in school, and one family vehicle, admits the yard needed some attention but that it just wasn’t feasible to do the work.
“The bushes and trees were overgrown. But that’s certainly not a criminal offense,” she says.
Last week, Judge Terry Vann handed down a five-day jail sentence to Holloway for refusing to comply with the city ordinances regarding yard maintenance, specifically the lack thereof. Holloway feels this was all just too much, saying, “It’s not right. Why would you put me in jail with child molesters and people who’ve done real crimes, because I haven’t maintained my yard.”
In addition to the severity of the sentencing, Holloway say she also feels that she was bullied during the process because she was never read her rights or told that she could have a lawyer present.
And you wonder why so many Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday:
The only time the public has felt worse was in October 2008, during the first, deep spasms of the recession. Then, 78% said the nation was on the wrong track, and only 12% felt good about the country’s direction. The last time “right direction” beat out “wrong track” was in January 2004 — and the last election cycle where that was the case was 2002.
For related storied about serfs being arrested for minor incidents, while the rich and powerful get away with enormous criminality, see:
Connecticut Man Arrested for “Passive Aggressive” Behavior to a Watermelon
New Jersey Threatens to Take 13-Year-Old Student From His Father Due to “Non-Conforming Behavior”
Hyper-Sensitive Illinois Mayor Orders Police Raid Over Parody Twitter Account
Charleston Man Receives $525 Federal Fine for Failing to Pay for a $0.89 Refill
The “War on Street Artists” – Puppeteer Unlawfully Arrested and Harassed in NYC Subway
Video of the Day – Thuggish Militarized Police Terrorize and SWAT Team Iowa Family
»
- 46387 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Wonder if there's more to this story that's not being told.
This sounds to me like a case where the accused made such an ass out of herself in court that the judge sentenced her to jail for contempt. I doubt seriously that poor lawn care, by itself, is a jailable offense.
She is a republican and the judge wants her behind bars over the election?
Meanwhile, I bet you could find a dozen gov owned properties nearby that aren't maintained either.
Getting closer to that time:
H.L. Mencken
how many bankers in jail? oh right...nevermind
Who else to tend to the plantation, If not the sheeple?
However, it is still perfectly legal for her to kill her unborn child.
still perfectly legal to adopt as many unwanted birth'd babies as you choose.
what would jesus do?
edit: nice add of the emotive pic horsey. go adopt one NOW.
Yes. However, people are only ready, willing, and able to adopt live babies.
Thou shall not kill is a Commandment (The Law). I believe that Jesus would follow this Commandment, based on his teachings.
As for me, I am currently married to the mother of all of my children, and shooting blanks ever since the last one was born.
And if your wife is raped and impregnated - Do you abort or raise the child?
Oh the old "rape" question again. Fact is most abortions are not from rapes but people just fucking and not using any protection. Retards like you like to use that as a justification when it's not even close to the reason for majority of abortions.
Hey Fuck Nut, I simply asked a question!
Have the balls to truthfully answer it!
Had a teacher in High School that claimed she was raped and had the kid. She loved the kid like any other....it's not the kids fault.
(Side note to the story: The teacher was pretty heinous looking so I actually theorized she was the one doing the raping)
You have failed to factor in the role alcohol might have played in this.
The rape question can easily be confronted by simply administering a shot of estrogen to the woman immediately after the rape. This can be done by a doctor and will not allow the sperm to adhere to the egg, as the estrogen will simply cause the "monthly visit" to begin in earnest.
Sunday, bloody Sunday!!!
How in the hell did this thread turn into an abortion debate / rant...
Meet the new owner of the town of Lenoir City, TN. A good lawyer will win more than that shithole is worth in about 5 minutes flat in front of a Federal Jury for violation of due process and Constitutional Rights.
So this lady had an abortion on her lawn or something? Wtf is thread even about?
Just exactly what I was wondering, James Cole. Sorry to all you men posting here but, NO UTERUS, NO OPINION!!
No opinion,
no child support.
Unlike you, I would love it with all my heart and be exactly the same father to my 3d child as I am to the other two
That is a tough question. God willing we do not have to face that prospect. I cannot predict what we would do, but I would think that giving it up for adoption might also be an option, no?
Good answer.
Not really. Its a dodge.
And why is there no apparent consideration of his wife's wishes in the matter?
Is English a second language for you? Or are you just really bad at rhetoric? "I cannot predict what we would do," is apparent consideration of my wife's wishes.
If you are so against abortion, how many foster children have you helped raised? Zero? Yeah that's what I thought. Put up or shut up.
It's so easy to post crap on message boards about how unbiblical abortions are, but to actually go out and save an already-born child from the foster care system is a whole different ball game.
I have little to no respect for righty tighties in this regard. I was in the foster care system as a teen, in a red state, and the righty tighties blowing smoke are nowhere to be found to help adopt kids in stable homes.
They preach the King James Version all day long, and never put it into practice except to "win" internet arguments against lefties and Darwinists. So farcical its sick.
We are raising our three children. Obviously, we did not abort them. Your question of how many foster children we have helped to raise is known as a red herring.
Oh it's a red herring now huh?
Your argument holds no weight and I blew it wide open, and its a "red herring" is the best you can come up with as your response. You know deep down in your soul that I am correct.
Put up or shut up. If you care about these fetuses so much, at least adopt and save one of them for crying out loud.
Yes. And it is an obvious one.
Please, let me at least try to help you understand. If I were to write the following, it would be fallacious.
Your red herring example that you copy/pasted from somewhere else, is just a total distraction from the the fact that you don't practice what you preach.
Besides if you want to DISCUSS RED HERRINGS. YOUR O.P. IS A RED HERRING!!!!
The article was about a lady arrested for not mowing her yard and you bring up abortion.
Think before you type next time, will ya!
I find ironic when I post a joke one-liner making fun of Obama I can get 65 upvotes and 0 downvotes on this site, but when I challenge one's beliefs, the kneejerks go flying.
This bellwether goes to show the level of the logged-in readership.
Hating on the common enemy works. Our petty differences, not so much.
Oh grow up. Your assertion that if one is against the murder of unborn babies then one is required to adopt is absurd.
The simple fact of the matter is that if people practiced personal responsibility there would be very little need for either abortion or adoption.
Just let him keep doubling down..., now everyone has no doubt about his intellect.
As I said before 9th dr, you care too much what others think of you. HH is taking care of his own which I respect. I have done this as well. The only thing he is guilt of is thread jacking and we all have done that.
I have not jouneyed to Sri Lanka and cared for the poor myself. If this is the only standard you hold for righteous behavior then most of us will fall short.
Miffed
9th Doctor, the knee-jerks own the place; everyone else is a visitor.
The hedgeless one can piously pontificate about the sanctity of life, but he only cares if it does not cost him a dime and he can lay a guilt trip on someone else and play holier than thou. When it comes to actually "saving a life", he cannot be bothered, as you have clearly demonstrated. That would require actually being true to his beliefs, acting upon them, and (gasp!) making a sacrifice. That is simply too much to ask of a hypocrite.
BTW, here is some completely unsolicited advice-
I know miffed is a lady, but I think it is warranted to tell her to fuck off and stop psychoanalyzing you. That patronizing schtick is getting old, and it is becoming a habit in her interaction with you.
Stick to your guns, Doc.
And now, back to the jail sentence for the overgrown yard...
The abortion issue is a tough one. Personally, I'm an atheist but I oppose abortion for a variety of reasons. However, I'm never happy when people fight for legislation that effects everybody based on their own personal religious fantasy world. Secular laws need to be rational.
Personally, I'm an atheist but I oppose abortion for a variety of reasons.
Yeah that's a good first step. But you gotta take it to it's logical conclusion - join the rest of us who are staunchly opposed to masturbation - the killing of unborn children to the tune of potential billions in one go!
And they said the nazis was bad, well ‘they’ never talk about the hidden holocaust, those libtard masturbating homicidal lunatics is killing trillions!! So many children never even had a chance.....
This went down a very hostile path and it did not need to go that was, please consider the following:.
Across countless generations, and across most (not all) cultures. The taking of an innocent life is a considered a capital offense (not condoning capital punishment, but can we at least agree murder is an "unacceptable human behavior")
Ok Once we agree murder is a (nearly) universal, cross cultural, time enduring unacceptable human behavior, we must decide what is a human life?
Can we agree that once a baby is born, it is a human life, and murder of such baby would be unacceptable?
Normal pregnancy is 9 month, but what about premature birth?
If a baby was born 2 month premature, would it still be a human life?
Would killing a preemie be murder or not? i think we can agree it would be murder.
As medical technology advances we are getting to a point where midterm (4.5 month) premature babies are viable to be saved in a small percentage of the time
If then, a premature infant of 5 month post conception was killed would this be an unacceptable murder?
One can see where this is going.
Where do we draw the line in the sand that abortion is not murder?
12 weeks?
I thought maybe this would be ok, yes up to 12 weeks.
That was fine in my selfish brain until I saw my own unborn daughter in her 12 week ultra sound.
She looked marvelous; she looked like... a Baby! she moved around and had all the tell tale signs of human life, arms legs, fingers toes, even made a little feminine gesture with her hand to her forehead and we just knew she was a girl before even the ultrasound tech could confirm.
I knew then and there my so cold and ruthless logic of a 12 week rule was total SHIT.
I knew then and there I was wrong. (it was as close to a spiritual experience and many will have in a lifetime, but I digress)
If at 12 weeks an unborn "fetus" looks and moves like a tiny human,
If medical science continues to advance where earlier and earlier premature birth can be supported to survive,
Please consider WHEN, dear reader is Abortion not murder?
If then, abortion can always be defined as murder, then all other arguments, religious, secular, adoption, hypocrisy or not, these fall away.
Call a spade a spade. We are EFFING KILLING BABIES, at last count 46 million since Roe V Wade.
If there is some higher power, God, Karma, Buddha, whatever and some corresponding sense of balance or justice even to the universe (what goes around comes around);
Then
We are seriously EFFED to not call this out , and we will deserve whatever is coming at us.
I miss America.
Yes, the viability argument is a good illustration. We are all dependent on one another for something.
A staunch pro-abortion "feminist" once told me that she was fine with late term abortions because the baby is still depending on the mother. Using the viability argument leads to killing toddlers, or anyone not sufficiently powerful.
To be against pro-life, you take the road to being pro-death.
Was just remarking to myself last night how the reading comprehension of posters on this site is dropping dramatically.
I think its an emotional element where they read what they want to in order to justify their thinking. Very typical in libs that work more from emotion than logic.
Lawn care, bylaws, weeds, overgrowth, rape, abortion options, all makes perfect sense. Overgrown cabbage patch?
Holy hell, you're an idiot.
"I think its an emotional element where they read what they want to in order to justify their thinking. Very typical in republicans that work more from emotion than logic."
There, fixed it.
Oh wait, that's not true either?
How about this:
"I think its an emotional element where they read what they want to in order to justify their thinking. Very typical in over-emotional, non-self aware individuals that work more from emotion than logic."
Keep your eyes on the prize.
Speaking of blackholes...
Perhaps the precursor question is, will you be able to raise said child after you kill the motherfucker who raped your wife? A reasonable jury would allow you to do so in the comfort of your own home.
Abort the shit out of it if it's the product of a rape within 5 weeks of the rape. Plain and simple. Nothing but a ball of goo a little smaller than a marble. Tell me intellectually how that is taking a life.
It is not so plain and simple for me.
At what point do you draw the line?
5 minutes?
5 hours?
5 days?
5 weeks?
5 months?
interesting that you would consider requiring your wife to carry a rape pregnancy to term.
very interesting.
Where did I say that?
Very interesting that you are forced to fabricate statements for me.
Very interesting, indeed.
very preacher-like of you, slippery.
last time I checked, if you want to put a baybee "up for adoption" it requires an lengthy incubation period in a womb. . .
theoretically, of course.
I believe the man stated that he could not say for certtttain what he and his wife would do. That intimates that the decision would be mutual - not him "requiring" her to do anything.
Interesting how you deliberately choose words designed to denigrate the man.
Agreed and well said. Some can never get over their biases or personal histories. The never ending hate just spews forth and continues to poison everyone it touches creating division and polarization. Those in control use this and profit. So sad.
Miffed
Thanks for posting HH, isn't abortion workplace violence anyway?
Do you save all your semen, too? Risking Prostate Cancer? Or do you abort the semen, looking out for your body's best interests?
Because that's a line that's just a little further back.
...and I'm very serious.
Typically, ASSHOLE, pregnancy is not known until the first period is missed, which is usually about 3 to 4 weeks following conception (which is ~2 weeks after the period should have begun). Oh yeah, and you're an ASSHOLE.
Also, at 5 weeks the baby is about the size of a seasame seed, not a marble, but thanks for playing....ASSHOLE.
Well, before you scream ASSHOLE at someone, you need to know what you are talking about - and you don't. No, the first missed period is NOT 3-4 weeks after conception, it is TWO weeks give or take a couple of days depending on the length of a woman's cycle. When a woman misses her first period, she is considered about 4 weeks pregnant, as counting begins from the first day of the last period. It includes the two weeks prior to conception. Thanks for playing.
Hedgeless Horseman...
I know a woman who was raped, was impregnated, kept the pregnancy, and raised the child.
(I happen to love that woman with all of my heart. I know her carnally.)
The problems arose when the rapist had finished serving his term. Then the state of Arizona ordered that the man had visitation rights?!?
(Now really do you want to write about a nightmare? He extorted her for as much cash as he could get and then disappeared.)
I know that you believe that the child is alive at conception. My love, well, she has the same point of view. (That was her reason for keeping, and raising, the child.) So I do understand that.
But the Holy Bible has a different view.
Exodus 21:22-24 states,
"If men who are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious \\\\\\\\injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." New International Version
[a] or she has a miscarriage
I am sorry but miscarriages were fatal to the fetus 5000 YEARS AGO.
And, today, abortions are an INTENTIONALLY FORCED MISCARRIAGE.
Thus the term "serious injury" applies to the woman. If the woman is killed then the penalty is "life for life." But, in all liklihood that fetus did not live when miscarried, did it? (I expect honesty...)
But that penalty imposed upon the violator, life for life, is not for the loss of the fetus.
If the fetus were alive then the penalty would be life for life, as it is in so many other passages of Mosaic and Levitical Law concerning wrongful death.
Now I have read the retorts of some "Christiann" ministers. "Oh...That is the Old Testament..."
And my retort is that Jesus spoke and said plainly that he did not come to abolish the Law. In fact he proclaimed that if we were not as pious as the Pharisees then we would not see the Kingdom of Heaven. (That means I am probably Hellbound as I deserve it..but...that is another topic altogether.)
Now, personally, I applaud the decision of the love of my life. She did well.
Personally I have not ever had a woman intentionally abort a pregnancy. I do not believe it to be a good and proper form of Birth Control...
I am certain that many Roman Catholics will also give reasons that one should not use Birth Control PERIOD. In fact they use the story of Onan to dissuade masterbation as well as using premature withdrawal as a Birth Control method. (God struck Onan dead for spilling his seed.)
Fortunately I am not God.
I have not the wisdom to judge this.
Besides I am living proof that abortion needs to be legal.
Perhaps it would be better for me as I am probably Hellbound anyway...as I deserve it.
So do you believe yourself to be God and do you have the wisdom?
You fail to discern the difference between law and Law. Man does not create law; which is in fact natural law and comes from God. So, of course, Jesus did not come to "change the law."
This is what we in the biz call a GCE (Gross Concept Error).
Is that all that you garnered from that post? I am in total agreement that Natural Law is God's Law. So shall it be just the Survival of the fittest?
So cross spcies sex is okay because it happens in Nature and is a Natural Event?
So Homosexuality is okay as it is exhibited in many species?
So cannibalism is okay because it happens in many different species?
No. Jesus was speaking about Mosaical and Levitical Law. He did not come to abolish that..
No. Natural Law is not the entirity of God's Law.
What I call that in my profession is a failure to understand SET THEORY.
Natural Law is a subset of God's Law. There exists SUPERNATURAL LAW which is God's Law in its entirity..
MAN in the sky fantasy. Sorry try again. Thats the great part about the internet, you get as many tries as you want.
Natural Law was created by the Greeks.
Lol, whose God? Man has thousands of gods. Even within the spectrum of christianity there are hundreds of common variants. In the past people believed in thousands of now forgotten "gods".
Secular law can't be based on one group of people's jointly believed superstitions.
Do you know what I found to be the most remarkable result from my post?
NOT A SINGLE PERSON EXPRESSED ANY EMPATHY.
The "Christian" posters were too challenged by my exposure of scripture and had to deal with some cognitive dissonance. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EMPATHY FROM THEM.
The atheist posters were too challenged by my assertion and belief in a Creator which,forsomereason caused them some cognitive dissonance. They were NO DIFFERENT FROM THE CHRISTIANS AS THERE WAS NO EMPATHY EXPRESSED BY THEM.
It is a true story after all...
Just what does that indicate about most of the people whom post here? If I were a psychologist then what would I conclude?
Take a good look in the mirroras as the monster psychopath is YOU.
Exposing you is just too damned easy.
Do not bother responding as it is far too late.
Thank you
AD
So you freely admit you were trolling for empathy?
LMAO!
Oh yeah, right, you were just trying to prove that "most of the people whom post here" are "psychopaths" for not responding to your needs.
By the way, your grammar and spelling are slipping.
I am truly sorry, but "I will dock points" for that.
Anyone who makes law and doesn't enforce it is a fake.
Your "god" doesn't enforce these laws he/she/it allegedly made, so your "god" is a fake, not worthy of anyone's respect much less obedience.
And no you never put the responsibility for enforcing your laws on someone else (humans in this case). That's called copout, not worthy of anyone's respect much less obedience.
If your "god" is real then let's see he/she/it enforce their damn laws. Until then they can just fuck off, we're not interested.
What? They'll be enforced on "judgment day".
Nope, doesn't count. It's called failure to prosecute (in a timely manner), which brings dismissal of the case.
Plus your "bible" says a law not enforced speedily allows evil to flourish. So your "god" is allowing evil to flourish, and that cannot be held against the so-called "evil doers".
Bottom line "god's law" is a joke no one with any legal background would have any respect for.
See, this takes the discussion out of religion and puts it in the legal area where any discussion of law should be.
And your "god" loses in the legal area where people have some brains.
What a hypocrite you are.
Very convenient ethical stand IMHO.
Seems to me with your posted photo that you imply a reverence to all life. And are anti abortion no matter what.
I ask how you can judge for others?
A rapist impregnating your wife, sad, but would still be a member of your family from conception would they not?
Why would you condemn an innocent unborn with no choice to separation from their birth mother. You imply that it would be your choice. YOUR choice.
False dichotomy. Give the child up for adoption if you can't raise it. The line for adoptions is so long, any baby who isn't obviously broken will have no trouble being adopted.
In addition, many couples are forced to adopt foreign children because the process here is so long, legalistic, and expensive.
indeed
and would your jesus also advocate persecution of all you point your finger at, or would "he" be quietly going about the care of all those abandoned?
somehow I doubt he would be agitating for fascist state interventions in a human right to body sovereignty - but admittedly, I don't write his scripts, nor do I promote his many "perspectives" while pointing fingers at those I judge to be in "violation" of his "laws".
maybe one day you shall have your xtian government statehood. or a fellow god-botherer's version of same, yes.
Where have I persecuted others?
So, the unborn child is not a human, or has no rights, in your opinion.
Take it out of the womb and let it try to exist at six weeks. Answer your own fucking idiotic question.
Scamper back onto the porch, little dog.
So, only humans that can survive on their own have rights? A baby would have a hard time existing on its own at 6 days, 6 weeks, and even 6 months old, too. Using your "logic" is it ok to kill a six month old baby, too, because it cannot survive without its mother?
By the way, these are very difficult questions, and not, "fucking idiotic questions," in my opinion.
No, they're idiotic questions. So many people spend so much time worrying about the unborn and not giving a flying fuck about us who actually exist as living, breathing humans.
It's no fucking business of yours or mine or any one else's if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy. It's HERS, not yours. Not mine. And no one else's.
Perhaps if the fundamentalists quit spending so much time fretting abortion and gays, we could get something meaningful done in this country. The cultural war isn't being waged by us liberals - it's being dragged-out by the fascists who want to control the lives of everybody, all the while maintaining their desire for some kind of perverse meanings of "freedom" and "liberty". Double-think in action, leading to inaction on everything else.
What about if a woman chooses to end her child's life at 6 months into the pregnancy?
Is it still her choice to do so?
What about if a woman chooses to end her child's life at 6 days old?
Is it still her choice to do so?
What about if a woman chooses to end her child's life at 6 months old?
Is it still her choice to do so?
If these are not difficult questions, then please give us your answers.
Congratufuckinglations! You've gone from idiotic questions to outright insane and logically fallacious questions.
That's all I even care to write in reply to such a batshit crazy comment. You people need help.
I accept your unconditional surrender.
I hope everyone learned something from our fight.
No, really. You people need help. I mean it. Seriosly. Take a good look at yourself and realize it. Something happened to you and it caused you to go fucking crazy.
Here we are on a FINANCIAL web blog and you zealots turn it into Stormfront. No goddamned wonder we can't fix ourselves economically. People like you can't let go of things that really should have been let go of decades ago.
If you hate America so much, move to Iran. You'd love it there, I'll bet.
You are not making any counter arguments, just bitching and squirming.
As to HH's questions, they sure as fuck are some of the toughest questions I could come across.
I am not ashamed to say that I do not have the answer to them.
When is a child a child? minutes? days? weeks?
I have thought about these questions and cannot come up with a logical answer. I bet many of you have as well.
pods
When is a weed "overgrown"? The judge had no difficulty with that one. Off to jail and weed the fuckin yard, bitch!
Pods, it are threads like these that truly upset me. I'm embarrassed at the viscous attacks by women. You are right. There is no debate, just emotionalism. The ugly side of female in all it's glorification today. You go girl and damn anyone that crosses your path!
Yes, I have personally thought on these issues with no concrete answers that can hold up in all cases. I have changed my point of view after becoming a mother to understand different aspects of this topic I believe in freedom but also personal responsibility. If I had been raped and found myself pregnant I really don't know what I would have done. Thankfully, I will never have to face that now.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I've had a bad day and you made me feel better.
Miffed
Well times have been rough, stay safe and keep that hood down!
pods
*facepalm*
I can't decide which I hate more. The crotch conservative that won't get his nose out of my crotch (and everyone else's) like a badly behaved dog, or the liberal wingnut that thinks my ownership of my body is something "cultural."
As a libertarian woman, I'd like both of you to leave my crotch, my money, and my guns ALONE.
Suggesting that you take personal responsibility for your crotch doesn't mean that anybody wants to stick their nose anywhere near it.
Nobody has any problem with suggesting that gun owners take personal responsibility with their guns; yet when people suggest that women and men take personal responsibility for ther crotches - all of a sudden they become fundamentalist tyrants.
" yet when people suggest that women and men take personal responsibility"
At what point did I suggest that I or anyone else has or should abdicate responsibility? Please provide the quote if you can.
You implied it from the context of the thread. Is your memory really that poor?
You accept his surrender, but now you'll need to "surrender" to my argument.
I hope you learned something from my post up above.
For all of you Pro-Abortion people, please go vistit your local elementary school tomorrow. Come back and tell us which of the kids you would have aborted.
That is all.
aaaaaaand, the meme is inevitably ramped to emotive max!
if we let gays marry, wot next?? beastiality????
I accept your unconditional surrender.
I hope everyone learned something from our fight.
lmao.
what are you, 15??
yeah, you win. the State is your prize. enjoy.
Yeah, he'll enjoy his Christian theocracy. Next he'll encounter like-minded folks who will persecute him next for "not being Christian enough". It will just spiral down from there.
I thought our liberal founding fathers put an end to this. Yes, I used the word "liberal" in its classical definition. The opposition to the divine right of kings and state-sponsored religion. Thomas Jefferson is my favorite liberal.
What if the little bastard grows up to slaughter hundreds of thousands of your friends? What if you have to pay for the child, including the damages?
What if the government drafts it to kill their friend's enemies for them and the young fool dies? Did the government murder him? What would be justice?
What if these self immolating maroons all disappear after 2 generations of no welfare?
+100 Hedgeless
also in response to
" It's HERS, not yours. Not mine. And no one
else's."
The issue here is that the right of a human life "to exist" trumps the personal right to choose "how to exist."
If I don't like some human, because of how they affect my life, it does not give me a right to end their life (unless it is a danger to my life, e.g. self defense against violence)
We are not saying a woman cannot get some procedure done to get rid of an ugly mass of flesh which is making her life miserable.
We are saying:
“The woman looses the right to choose her near term future convenience in life due to pregnancy because to abort is equal to murder.”
We all know from childhood "two wrongs don't make a right"
It is a terrible tragedy if in the cases of "rape or incest" a child is conceived.
If a child is born with a horrible defect we still try to save it.
But in history there were cultures that put such children to death, yet today we consider this barbaric and inhumane.
But somehow, convenience to the mother during pregnancy has become a "god" of sorts unto ourselves. The right of every person to do whatever whenever is seen as the highest idol.
"Who dare say what someone else can do with our own body?" is the cry of this era.
Yet this has never been the case through all history. Daughters are given in marriage, men are conscripted and sent to horrible wars. Caste systems kept persons locked in a state of generational servitude.
It is a novel and recent concept that "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body" especially when it includes killing the unborn fetus.
I posted above about the fallacy ruling “at 12 weeks”, from my personal experience.
And I put forth a logical argument about where to draw the line.
The resting place for this argument is still, if taking human life is murder and the unborn is a human life, Then abortion is murder.
So, No the mother does not have the right to murder her baby.
It’s not just her baby anyway, it also the father's baby.
What strikes me as odd, is that this aspect is not accounted for in secular law.
There is no legal requirement of consent from the father prior to allowing an abortion.
This makes the current standard of secular law which allows abortion to be highly suspect.
Even in Roe V wade SCOTUS penned some text to the effect that if life could be determined to start earlier than birth then the ruling would fall.
This is the current tact the pro life groups are using, to achieve a scientific basis for life to begin earlier than birth and overrule Roe V. Wade.
Above I also posted about premature survival rates improving earlier and earlier due to medical technology.
So at this time the 5 or 6 week range seems impossible, 40 years ago what we achieve today was impossible.
Corollary, Less than 20 years ago we were still performing 3rd trimester abortions, and "partial birth abortions".
These were horrific murderous events which killed children which would at the time have an over 50% chance of survival as a premature birth. We have since had the good sense to ban such procedures.
It is my hope that one day we will look back on this selfish era in human history as just as barbaric as when we today look at cannibalistic culture, or societies who killed infants who were "imperfect"
However, in the near term, I think we will see more, much more unjust death dealt in forms of cultural and religious genocide across the globe, even reaching to this continent.
The murderous threats I see posted even here on ZH against those of some sort of Christian faith is not lost on me.
The day is coming when such folks will be lining up any who call themselves “Christian” and either herding them in the trains to the camps or shooting them into mass graves, or beheading them as ISIS does, right here in the ole USA.
The issue is if there is no God, then how dare anyone make any rules for anyone else?
So to claim there are ANY moral absolutes makes the person of faith a pariah in the secular humanist realm.
The secular humanist cannot tolerate the living existence of any person who would claim there is any type of right or wrong, the person of moral absolutes must be exterminated from the earth for their secular world view to triumph.
And so shall be the next great genocide.
Thank you ImGumbydmmt
"Take it out of the womb and let it try to exist at six weeks. Answer your own fucking idiotic question."
So if I kill a pregnant woman should I be charged with two murders, or one?
"Take it out of the womb and let it try to exist at six weeks. Answer your own fucking idiotic question."
Total falacious argument. Take a baby one month out of the womb born after a full term pregnancy, fail to give it care and nutrician, and see how long it lives. All children, in or out of the womb, require constant care from adults. So, how is it different?
And why do you attack people with vulgar insults? Oh, I know, because you are unable to think in a coherent fashion and engage in honest and respectful debate.
ohh, butter wouldn't melt. . .
aye, lets just point the finger at the wombs, and let the sperm donors spread their seed far and wide.
it's all about the control of female bodies, evidence exists in every religious State globally. if you're truly harping on personal responsibility, then realise it takes two to make a "baby".
unless it's all immaculate, of course.
"...aye, lets just point the finger at the wombs, and let the sperm donors spread their seed far and wide."
Why should your vagina and what goes into it be anyone else's responsibility but your own? It is YOUR body, after all. YOUR body, YOUR responsibility.
Only a child would demand 100% of the choice but expect someone else to be responsible.
I say it's time to liberate men from women (and their thuggish protector, the government). Time for women to put their big girl panties on. 100% of choice = 100% of responsibility. No more running to Daddy government and his guns to hide behind, either. If you don't want a child then gain better control over your base impulses and close your legs. Or use one of the many forms of birth control available to women. If your'e too stupid to do that then you're on your own.
"Why should your vagina and what goes into it be anyone else's responsibility but your own? It is YOUR body, after all. YOUR body, YOUR responsibility."
I agree with this statement completely.
"100% of choice = 100% of responsibility. No more running to Daddy government and his guns to hide behind, either."
I agree with this statement also.
" If you don't want a child then gain better control over your base impulses and close your legs. Or use one of the many forms of birth control available to women."
I agree with this and add; Or have an abortion at your own expense. That would also be a part of 100% ownership and responsibility. I am firmly against taxpayer-funded abortions. And taxpayer-funded anything else for that matter.
Bet you didn't expect to be in complete agreement with pro-choice anti-government types. ;p
one of the more eccentric law professors (male) said the abortion debate was really a property law issue from both directions, women and the unborn. At the time, I thought he was being sarcastic.
Rothbard wrote an essay about it in the 50's when the topic first started coming up regularly.
has anyone ever determined how many folks who oppose abortion support capital punishment?
I have determined that I oppose capital punishment.
Where do you stand?
That's murder of a different color Davey.
Rape & incest don't count either.
CA,
You are obviously not very well-read.
Even a passing observer of Christianity will notice the part where a person's body is described as a temple. One should treat his/her body as a holy creation of God. Of course this extends to the baby growing inside a woman's belly.
It goes without saying that Jesus would adamantly oppose baby-murder, and would recoil in horror at the claim that baby-murder should be defended as a "woman's right to choose." No woman has any more "right" to commit that crime against humanity than any man does.
What's interesting is that one does not have to be a Christian to recoil in horror at the holocaust of abortion-on-demand.
decided to follow me 'round then, eh?
I've read your holy book, and I know the "body as temple" meme - I also know that appealing to a State to enForce your half-assed beliefs is the ultimate in human persecution. religious States are always man-made and enForced, ALWAYS.
when you extend your surveillance to the holy sperm donors that are equally responsible for "baby-making" then I'll enter into a discussion with you.
until then, do feel free to selectively quote your jesus storybook - conveniently ignoring all the scriptures that advocate non-intervention, forgiveness, turning it over to "god" for judgements, etc.
I'm not sure whether or not to dignify any of this incomprehensible gibberish with a response.
I suppose I should ask: What, specifically, do you believe I have "selectively quoted" from the Bible?
What is not selectively quoted?
It is interesting that while the abomination of gay marriage is gaining over America because of lawless judges, abortion appears to be slowly losing.
I'm convinced the Constitution needs to be specifically amended to remove the power of Judges to unsurp and change the law. They bring nothing but trouble.
ahhhhh yes, the dog whistle inevitably brings out the pack. . .
Please, unsurp yourself and do the human race a favor.
Tell me, is there any differentiation between unmarried maternity, incest maternity, or marital maternity, in "Thou Shall Not Murder"?
Why do some draw that demarcation point that it's against a woman's right to have sovereignity over her own body, yet it's ok if the fruit of rape is a result?
Differing degrees?
Personal convictions?
Another emotionally divisive hot button topic.
Ahh, gay marriage. The topic that I cannot get away from here in NC, well that and the incessant vote for/against Hagan/Tillis ads.
Here is the problem with gay marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God.
Of course, until the state created 14th amendment citizens entitled to all the privileges that it entails. (follow me for a second all you ADD MF'ers, take an Adderall)
When the states started deciding WHO should marry, they made those wishing to marry enter into a tripartite contract. That's right, you, your spouse, AND THE STATE. There are many thoughts on why this went on, but many surrounded black/white marriage, etc. What the state did was allow married couples certain BENEFITS due to their status as married. Thus marriage became a religious AND a civil contract. Now, the government is not allowed to discriminate against certain people due to the equal protection of the law. So, two individuals who would like to enter into a tripartite contract with the state in order to receive the benefits of this civil agreement could not be prohibited by the state in doing so.
Of course, most people keep digging when they see a problem, so they fight the state allowing others seeking these privileges instead of realizing the REAL problem:
Why is the state a part of a marriage contract in the first place?
pods
I upvoted you because of what you highlighted in bold but I disagree with you saying Marriage is the union of a man and woman before God.
Marriage is whatever the STATE decides it is. It's just legal fiction. Even to this day throughout Asia, there are forced marriages, men marrying little girls for inheritance reasons, sham marriages for business deals, etc. etc. etc.
Going back to stateside, I know a bible thumper personally who is on her second marriage and has stepkids. I thought divorce was a sin so what's with the second marriage? Second marriages aren't bibically sound but the righty tighies are only focusing on gays. What's up with that?
That's because a lot of righty tightys get second marriages, so that's ok because they were "young, naive, and learned". But we better not them gay people marry, that's blasphemous in the eyes of God.
The selectiveness is total insanity.
No, a marriage is TWO things (today).
One, a religious one, which the state has zero business being involved in.
The second, is a civil contract, with three parties. Each spouse, and the state.
The problem is that these have been joined (by the state) and there is where the problem stems from.
Separate them out and things are clear and there is no issues.
Can the government force a church, temple etc to perform a ceremony against church beliefs? No, and rightly so. So this "gay marriage" issue is all about the civil contract, and most proponents say as much aloud. Whether that is a smokescreen for an intent to destroy religion idk, and don't really care. I think if push came to shove, bullets would fly if a church was made to do something like that. I don't attend to church as I am not a huge fan of earthly authority, be it the state or religion.
If you have a problem with organized religion, take it up with them.
If you have a problem with two of the same sex entering into a tripartite contract with the state to access benefits afforded by being a citizen, that is where you run into a problem. On the state side, it is all about benefits being shared by two parties, and they cannot declare who the parties can be based upon religious tenets. So judges have correctly ruled that the state has no authority basing marriage licenses upon religious tenets. This gets all the fundies bent out of shape. If they ruled the other way, then the sodomites would be up in arms. (I am a sodomite myself, as oral sex is pleasurable, for both man and woman)
Bottom line, get the state OUT of marriage. Let religious couples choose whether to enter into the civil benefits side or to remain as individuals before the state. And issue these civil certificates to whoever wants to enter into those contracts.
pods
Speaking of God, God I wish "gay marriage" was our only problem
And why do I have this weird feeling that "abortion" "capital punishment" and "gay marriage" will get less interesting in a over populated world with limited resources.
Well Davey if we can get rid of our exponential currency the need for exponential expansion goes away.
Then all that warm and fuzzy sustainable talk can commence.
I do agree that these arguments will be "the good old days" sooner than many of us think.
pods
This is spot on, as is your first post on the matter, pods. Absolutely spot on. But I want to add something to the conversation.
And that's that words have very specific meaning. Marriage is a union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN before GOD. Period. End of story. Always has been, always will be.
Now, if a couple of men want to get "married" (notice the quotes), go for it. They can call it "marriage" until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that they are not married before God.
You can call a rock a duck all you want. But it doesn't make it so. You can call a union of two men/two woman a "marriage" but it simply does not make it so.
What god?
You know what GOD.
Fine, you don't believe in God? Then you're not married. Call it what you want, but you're not married.
I love it.
Bottom line, get the state OUT of marriage.
"As for me, I am currently married to the mother of all of my children, and shooting blanks ever since the last one was born. "
Yet you yourself have adopted none.
Are you trying to make a point, or just taking notes for your own reading comprehension?
Nice ad hominem.
Clearly, you have no point to make, and you do not understand what ad hominem is.
So you were looking in the mirror when you wrote this?
Hedge I find it interesting that you have chosen to open yourself up to this debate. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to have passed through a crossroads in life and are will to burn bright with your feelings that would normally have been kept in check. Over the years I have valued your posts, the information within them has been more than helpful on many levels, but I find it hard to believe that you, just at random, pull the "abortion is murder" card out of your hip pocket and slap it down. What is it man? Is this your burn bright and flame out stage? I just don't get how you flow from woman goes to jail for not cutting her grass, to abortion is murder. One more question, how do you treat the killers of the unborn (the expectant mother, the doctor, the nurse, the father)? Do you put them to trial? Do you kill them (eye for an eye)? Do you jail them for life? I am not trolling you, I'm interested in how you would treat them in a way that your god would approve.
Know your enemy
AD
I was merely making an observation about our civilization which forces women to tend to their yard, but not to tend to their children. That just seems contradictory to me. Ayn Rand wrote that when we are faced with such a contradiction we are to check our premises, as at least one of them will always be false.
Your questions assume many things, but I will try to respond as best as I can.
No.
No.
No.
If others want to go around killing their own children, and killing others children for money, then they must live with the consequences of their actions. I am powerless to stop them.
However, I must look at myself. I chose to marry my wife, after she became pregnant, more than 20 years ago. I engage in frequent, and hopefully intelligent, discussions with family and friends about these issues, instead of relying on the state and media to educate us. I do my best to not support the abortion industry.
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change
the courage to change the things that I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.
If I do not judge them, but love them as I would myself, then I have faith that God will approve.
Sorry, but yer picture is completely out of porportion.
We arrested a 40 year old woman today for concealing 6 dead babies in a storage locker. The thought is that she gave birth or someone close to her gave birth and then the baby died.
So you think the state should be able to force women to remain pregnant, eh?
Think again.
No, I do not think the state is able to force women to remain pregnant.
I believe that one of the few legitimate roles of the state is to protect the rights of its citizens. One can argue that the rights of an unborn child to life supercede the rights of the mother to end the child's life.
Ask yourself a similiar question. So you think the state should allow one citizen to kill another simply as a matter of convenience and economy?
The unborn are only potential and have no rights.
So, you argue that our right to life begins only after we pass through our mother's birth canal after nine months of development?
Live birth is the beginning of life. That is my position. If fetuses had rights, neglecting to take prenatal vitamins would be felony reckless endangerment.
I applaud your courage in contemplating the issue, and making your position known, although I do not agree.
Your argument fails as it appeals to an authority that I do not recognize as legitimate.
"I believe that one of the few legitimate roles of the state"
Your argument fails for the same reason.
You are lobbying to change the laws of man to stop abortions, so you do recognize government as a legitimate authority. The laws of God are more open to personal and individual interpretation. I just took your position on the beginnings of life in its legal definition and its rights to the logical conclusion.
I up-voted you, even though I disagree. The laws of God are contrary to moral relativism.
one can better argue that one's control over one's own body is absolute - such that the right to end pregnancy, to remove a life form which is parasitic on one's own body, is a matter for the body affected.
Not for you.
Not for the state.
The slippery slope may lead to the argument that the state's control over the state is absolute
- such that the right to end life, to remove a life form which is
parasitic on the state, is a matter for the state affected. No?
We agree we don't want to go there.
I think we probably agree that we have a right to life...to live, but we don't agree if this we includes unborn children.
There you go again, artfully ducking and dodging. The question was:
So you think the state should be able to force women to remain pregnant, eh?
Your answer was:
No, I do not think the state is able to force women to remain pregnant.
I believe that one of the few legitimate roles of the state is to protect the rights of its citizens. One can argue that the rights of an unborn child to life supercede the rights of the mother to end the child's life.
So where do you stand? Which is it?
You, your government and your church can come and take my uterus out of my cold dead..... ummm....errrrr... uterine cavity.
How about the abortion issue related to welfare on a consistency basis? To be consistent and pro-life isn't a life at 6 years old equal to the unborn the size of a 50 cent piece? So if your anti-abortion shouldn't one also be pro welfare? Is it okay if a kid starves at 6? That is one thing that gets me about the abortion issue is consistency. If your pro abortion and anti welfare your consistent, pro-life and anti-welfare not so much.
lol!
Greetings Ms No.
Do not worry, if they come for your uterus I will stand at the breach and fight alongside you ;)
Criminalizing abortion doesn't stop it - it simply forces it underground. The more well-to-do would go elsewhere; the others would simply accept the risks involved in using a coat hanger or a back street abortionist, putting their own safety at risk, though there are also relatively safe do-it-yourself instructions on the internet these days. Women have always had the option of terminating a pregnancy. How to do it isn't a mystery and has been known since ancient times. Since you are not a woman and could never find yourself in the position of carrying a child you don't want, I'm sorry about your offended sensibilities, but forgive me if I'm not willing to deed sovereignty over the bodies of women into your hands or any other man's. That dog won't hunt.
I have not suggested such nonsense.
Please stop it with the fallacious arguments. I know you. You are capable of doing much better.
How patronizing. Your claim that the right of a fetus to life supercedes the rights of a woman to refuse to serve as the incubator for that life and endure the rigors of childbirth (which are highly unpleasant at best - I am in a position to know this first hand) states exactly that. It is insultingly paternalistic.