TexasTiger 13,053 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 to outlaw the use of contraception by married couples? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 to outlaw the use of contraception by married couples? What do you think? 156899[/snapback] Do you mean a state as in Alabama, Texas, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 to outlaw the use of contraception by married couples? What do you think? 156899[/snapback] Do you mean a state as in Alabama, Texas, etc? 156903[/snapback] Yep, any of the 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 to outlaw the use of contraception by married couples? What do you think? 156899[/snapback] Do you mean a state as in Alabama, Texas, etc? 156903[/snapback] Yep, any of the 50. 156910[/snapback] No way. How would you enforce that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 to outlaw the use of contraception by married couples? What do you think? 156899[/snapback] Do you mean a state as in Alabama, Texas, etc? 156903[/snapback] Yep, any of the 50. 156910[/snapback] No way. How would you enforce that? 156912[/snapback] No more difficult to enforce than some other laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 to outlaw the use of contraception by married couples? What do you think? 156899[/snapback] Do you mean a state as in Alabama, Texas, etc? 156903[/snapback] Yep, any of the 50. 156910[/snapback] No way. How would you enforce that? 156912[/snapback] No more difficult to enforce than some other laws. 156920[/snapback] Why would the state want to outlaw the use of contraception? Why would/should it have the right to control contraception use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I don't remember seeing the right of contraception in the Bill of Rights. Does this mean after I get my vasectomy, if they did outlaw it, then I would have to have it reversed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I don't remember seeing the right of contraception in the Bill of Rights. Does this mean after I get my vasectomy, if they did outlaw it, then I would have to have it reversed? 156927[/snapback] Oh, that's painful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I don't remember seeing the right of contraception in the Bill of Rights. Does this mean after I get my vasectomy, if they did outlaw it, then I would have to have it reversed? 156927[/snapback] You also won't find in the Bill of Rights where you have the right not to be murdered. Laws cover those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Not only no, but HELL no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I don't remember seeing the right of contraception in the Bill of Rights.  Does this mean after I get my vasectomy, if they did outlaw it, then I would have to have it reversed? 156927[/snapback] You also won't find in the Bill of Rights where you have the right not to be murdered. Laws cover those things. 156932[/snapback] So, with that logic, we have to pass a law to keep me from being murdered, and then we will need to pass a law making it legal to use a contraceptive method with my wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I don't remember seeing the right of contraception in the Bill of Rights.   Does this mean after I get my vasectomy, if they did outlaw it, then I would have to have it reversed? 156927[/snapback] You also won't find in the Bill of Rights where you have the right not to be murdered. Laws cover those things. 156932[/snapback] So, with that logic, we have to pass a law to keep me from being murdered, and then we will need to pass a law making it legal to use a contraceptive method with my wife? 156973[/snapback] Well, we do have laws that say murder is illegal, don't we? We'll need a law legalizing contraception usage only if it's been made illegal to begin with. You said you didn't see the right of contraception in the Bill of Rights and I was merely pointing out that you won't really see very many specific rights there. Or, maybe you do feel you have the right to be murdered. Society doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Not for now. Give Bush a chance to appoint a few more judges who believe in the state's power to do absolutely anything, and we'll see what else the values police try to make punishable by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,066 Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Not for now. Give Bush a chance to appoint a few more judges who believe in the state's power to do absolutely anything, and we'll see what else the values police try to make punishable by law. 157056[/snapback] Been in to the Kool-Aid pretty heavy haven't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 Not only no, but HELL no. 156953[/snapback] So if a state concludes that sex is only for procreation and it seeks to discourage sexual behavior that doesn´t lead to procreation since it deems such sex immoral, it can´t? Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,066 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Not only no, but HELL no. 156953[/snapback] So if a state concludes that sex is only for procreation and it seeks to discourage sexual behavior that doesn´t lead to procreation since it deems such sex immoral, it can´t? Why not? 157137[/snapback] And do you have a state in mind that is planning to try that? Even if they tried, do you think it would pass? Would the Supreme Court not declare it unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 Not only no, but HELL no. 156953[/snapback] So if a state concludes that sex is only for procreation and it seeks to discourage sexual behavior that doesn´t lead to procreation since it deems such sex immoral, it can´t? Why not? 157137[/snapback] And do you have a state in mind that is planning to try that? Even if they tried, do you think it would pass? Would the Supreme Court not declare it unconstitutional? 157154[/snapback] On what basis would it be unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,351 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 YES. States have that right. But if it is enforced, will it stand up to a constitutional challenge? States have proven int eh past that they can pass some pretty silly laws. Its not until they actually try to enforce it that the law is shown to be legally silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Not for now. Give Bush a chance to appoint a few more judges who believe in the state's power to do absolutely anything, and we'll see what else the values police try to make punishable by law. 157056[/snapback] Been in to the Kool-Aid pretty heavy haven't you. 157073[/snapback] The Constitution says that the states have the power over anything not specifically given to the Feds. What's wrong with appointing judges that interpret the Constitution that way?? What reason could the state give for outlawing contraception unless it was a religious based one? If it were solely a religious reason - God's plan is for all sex to end in pregnancy - then that would surely not withstand the Constitutional test. Is this discussion coming from that silly position by some pharmacists that are refusing to do their jobs and fill birth control prescriptions? That is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. I would be taking the birth control pill even if I was a celibate for religious reasons - it stops the growth of ovarian cysts and even controls certain types of acne. I'd like to see some pharmacist tell me that filling my script goes against his personal beliefs. He'd never need to worry about contraception for HIS partners again once I was thru with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 What is the difference between a lib and a long eared jack ass? Waiting....Still waiting..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 The Constitution says that the states have the power over anything not specifically given to the Feds. What's wrong with appointing judges that interpret the Constitution that way?? What reason could the state give for outlawing contraception unless it was a religious based one? If it were solely a religious reason - God's plan is for all sex to end in pregnancy - then that would surely not withstand the Constitutional test. Is this discussion coming from that silly position by some pharmacists that are refusing to do their jobs and fill birth control prescriptions? That is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. I would be taking the birth control pill even if I was a celibate for religious reasons - it stops the growth of ovarian cysts and even controls certain types of acne. I'd like to see some pharmacist tell me that filling my script goes against his personal beliefs. He'd never need to worry about contraception for HIS partners again once I was thru with him. 157206[/snapback] Amendment 9 and 10--powers not given to the Feds are given to the States OR THE PEOPLE. When I question "the State's" right to do certain things, I mean the government, Fed or State. I do not mean that a particular state is usurping what the Feds should be doing. Seems to me that if Bush and his judges have their way, we could well find courts UPHOLDING religious-based reasons to deny contraception, not to mention finding that pharmacists have a religious-based right to refuse to fill prescriptions they don't like. Not just contraception, but maybe AIDS medicine too, if their religion teaches them that the gays should die. Makes you wonder what kind of person would become a pharmacist if they don't want to fill prescriptions. What's next--Christian Scientists becoming doctors so they can withhold treatment? I agree that "Judicial activism" is just a fancy way of saying the judge did something you don't agree with and "just applying the law" is when you do agree with the judge. Look at the Fourth and Fifth circuits for examples of activist conservatives--whose rulings nevertheless make sense about as often as the Ninth circuit, and are boneheaded and unsupportable about as often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,451 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 In the Texas Sodomy Law Challenge case of a few years ago, the law was specifically chosen because the broad interpretive nature of the term "sodomy." The law left the term open to any activity that was not of a pro-creative nature (my paraphrase) including oral sex, anal sex, adult toy aided sex etc. Sodomy in TX under the law could be defined as any sex act listed above, even between consenting adults, even between hetero partners, even between man and wife. The law was rightly challenged that the enforcement was un-Constitutionally aimed at only homosexual males alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 In the Texas Sodomy Law Challenge case of a few years ago, the law was specifically chosen because the broad interpretive nature of the term "sodomy." The law left the term open to any activity that was not of a pro-creative nature (my paraphrase) including oral sex, anal sex, adult toy aided sex etc. Sodomy in TX under the law could be defined as any sex act listed above, even between consenting adults, even between hetero partners, even between man and wife. The law was rightly challenged that the enforcement was un-Constitutionally aimed at only homosexual males alone. 157269[/snapback] So what´s the basis for that decision? Are you saying equal protection law apply to gays or that the state can´t outlaw certain private acts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Time is up. The answer: "nothing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.