.
for purposes of getting on the jwmatch.com site, what are the songs for july 14th and july 21st?
thanks... cg
Moi? Cause trouble? Never! I am sincerely looking for a brother with a book bag. That's all I ask. The bigger the book bag, the better. ESPECIALLY leather. If it's one of those lawyer types of book bags, I'm gonna be a quiverin like jelly. And if it's a leather lawyer book bag, well just call me "Leggs Akimbo."
ROFLMAO
the florida supreme court has ruled that as long as they can pay for it, children as young as 12 can receive elective plastic surgery without parental consent.
sound far fetched?
not really, considering that the florida courts have indeed ruled that 12 year olds can get an abortion without parental consent.
Further information on the ruling from down here in Florida.
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_02_0227flparental.html
TALLAHASSEE, Florida - On March 4, the Center for Reproductive Rights will present arguments before the Florida Supreme Court on why Florida's law requiring physicians to notify a parent or legal guardian of a young woman prior to an abortion procedure violates the Florida Constitution. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a similar law that required written parental consent, finding it violated the right to privacy.
"The majority of young women choose to involve their parents in decisions about pregnancy. But government mandated communication will actually harm those young women who fear physical or emotional abuse by a parent," said Bebe Anderson, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights who represents the plaintiffs.
In February 2001, the First District Court of Appeal found the state law requiring parental notification valid under the Florida Constitution, ignoring strong evidence presented at the trial court level attesting to the harmful impact the law would have on minors. Judge Terry P. Lewis ruled that the law was unconstitutional in May 2000, finding that it did not serve a compelling state interest and that it violated the explicit privacy clause in Florida’s constitution, which allows young women the same right to privacy as adult women. The parental notice law has been blocked since July 1999 when it was due to take effect.
Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the Women's Law Project.
The argument is expected to be broadcast live on the internet by WFSU-TV at http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel.
Plaintiffs in North Florida Women’s Health & Counseling Services, Inc., et al. v. State of Florida, et al. (Case No: SC01-843) include 9 abortion providers and clinics, as well as women’s rights groups from across Florida. They are represented by Bebe Anderson and Jody Ratner of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Richard E. Johnson of Tallahassee, and Dara Klassel of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
the florida supreme court has ruled that as long as they can pay for it, children as young as 12 can receive elective plastic surgery without parental consent.
sound far fetched?
not really, considering that the florida courts have indeed ruled that 12 year olds can get an abortion without parental consent.
Why don't we get the facts and the rationale behind this ruling also before rushing to judgment. I am not necessarily saying I agree with the ruling of the court, only that I am attempting to make it known the other side of the story.
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/07/florida/d948866a.htm
Florida Supreme Court strikes down parental notice abortion law
Friday, July 11, 2003
Staff and wire reports
A Florida law requiring the notification of parents at least 48 hours before minors under the age of 18 can obtain abortions violates privacy rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Tallahassee.
The justices voted 5-1 to strike the law, which was passed in 1999 but never enforced pending resolution of the constitutional challenge. The high court reversed a decision of the 1st District Court of Appeal that had upheld the law.
The opinion reinforced and relied heavily on a similar Florida Supreme Court decision that overturned a parental consent abortion law in 1989.
Senior Justice Leander Shaw wrote for the majority that the court had to base its ruling on law rather than morality.
"We recognize that the legal issue of abortion has been one of the most gut-wrenching, emotionally laden issues of the past decades in Florida," Shaw wrote. "Sitting as a court, however, we cannot be ruled by emotion."
He also stressed that that state's privacy guarantee is stronger than rights provided by the U.S. Constitution. The majority found no compelling state interest to justify restricting the state's rights with a parental notification law, a finding lauded by abortion-rights proponents.
"The court recognized the harms that such laws impose on young women, including possible physical and emotional abuse, lack of access to confidential medical care, forced teen motherhood and delay in obtaining medical care," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer for the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.
Anderson had argued the case on behalf of about a dozen abortion clinics, doctors and advocacy groups. She said the decision cannot be appealed to the federal level because it is grounded in the Florida Constitution, which also limits its value for setting a national precedent.
"It does have persuasive value in some other states" with privacy laws similar to Florida's, she said.
Mike McCarron, executive director of the Florida Catholic Conference, one of several groups on both sides that intervened on both sides of the issue, said the decision "is outrageous and terrible."
"It robs children of their parents' involvement in vital health decisions and it robs the parents of their right to raise and properly care for their children," McCarron said.
The ruling leaves parental notification advocates no recourse short of a dramatic change in the Supreme Court's membership or a constitutional amendment, said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Lawmakers passed a similar bill in 1998 but it was vetoed by Gov. Lawton Chiles. Gov. Jeb Bush signed the 1999 bill. He said he was disappointed by the decision.
"I think the balance should be going more toward parents," Bush said. "It's hard to imagine we live in a society where parents wouldn't be notified of an abortion."
Simon said the ruling, by reinforcing the 1989 consent law decision, may help the ACLU halt Bush's effort to get a court-appointed guardian for the fetus of a mentally rape victim in Orlando. A judge there rejected the governor's request before the consent law decision, but the state has appealed.
Officials with Planned Parenthood of Collier County applauded the court's decision even though it does not provide abortion services to any women regardless of age.
"While Planned Parenthood believes strongly that parents should be involved in the health decision of minors, this law would have wrongly punished young people who come from homes where physical violence, rape, incest or emotional abuse are prevalent," Char Wendel, president and chief executive officer, said. "We are very pleased that the Florida Supreme Court recognized this and that the right to privacy is non-negotiable."
Because there is no abortion clinic in Collier or physicians accepting referrals for the procedure, the local Planned Parenthood refers women to clinics in Lee County or on the state's east coast.
Officials with the Naples Pro-Life Council could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The abortion rate in Florida has been going up whereas the opposite is true nationwide, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, a not-for-profit organization for reproductive health research. That's despite that 70 percent of Florida counties had no abortion providers in 2000.
In Florida in 2000, the year most recent statewide data is available, 103,050 women had abortions for a rate of 31.9 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. That's a 4 percent rate increase since 1996.
Nationwide, 1.3 million American women had abortions in 2000, for a rate of 21.3 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That's a 5 percent rate decline since 1996.
Wendel, of Collier's Planned Parenthood, had no figures for how many minors in the community get abortions.
"I had two 11-year-olds in here last month," she said, referring to the clinic, which provides counseling services. "One chose to abort and one chose to become a parent. I am shocked by that. Eleven is unbelievable. That is why this parental notification law was so scary for us."
At Southwest Florida Women's Clinic in North Fort Myers, which provides abortions, Dr. Ali Azima, said the court's decision was a good one.
"I admire the decision," he said.
If the parental notification law had been upheld and gone into effect, young women would go to another state to have the procedure, he said.
"People would go to an adjacent state, therefore it wasn't going to stop people from having an abortion," he said. "Why make it inconvenient? It makes no sense."
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead and Justices Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente agreed with Shaw in the notification ruling, but each also wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice R. Fred Lewis agreed with the majority's result but not its reasoning. Justice Charles Wells dissented. The opinions and dissents totaled 137 pages.
Lewis conceded the 1989 opinion set a proper precedent but contended the majority justices went too far by also finding the state had no compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of minors for all manner of medical procedures.
Pariente and Anstead disagreed, writing Lewis had read too much into the majority opinion.
Wells argued the 1989 decision did not set a precedent because consent is much more restrictive than mere notification.
A Tallahassee trial judge in May 2000 ruled the law violated privacy rights, but the District Court overturned that decision last year.
The Associated Press and staff writer Liz Freeman contributed to this report.
i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?
murder, rape, incest?
how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.
I think there comes a time when morals stop having anything to do with it. Morals are set aside due to circumstances. For those who watched the rape of their child, they did not make a choice of morality but a choice due to fear of a worse fate for their child. I doubt they were thinking about morality.
Irregardless, they made a moral choice. For those who attest to a belief in moral absolutism, morals cannot conveniently be set aside due to circumstance as you suggest. In the example I first gave, for many it would be considered the "moral" thing to do to allow the rape of one if it meant survival of all four.
You hypothesize:
Say, the siblings do procreate as you say in your scenario; they produce deformed children and most do not live past the age of one.Are they procreating out of necessity? Moreover, what necessity would that be?
You asked when is incest ever justifiable. I provided a scenario which shows when it would be "moral" for a brother and sister to reproduce to attempt to continue the survival of mankind. Necessity is irrelevant. Was it "moral"? We are discussing moral absolutes, and if some actions are wrong under any and all circumstances.
Contrary to those who would suggest that morals are absolute, and therefore ecumenical, examples have shown that morals are not a universally accepted belief or set of standards, and vary from culture to culture.
Furthermore, that analogy is but one example. In some primitive cultures incest is not unheard of. They readily accept it into their belief system and do not think it to be "wrong." Others touched on historical records where sex with minors was viewed as normal. Who are you or I from a different culture to ride in on our high horse and tell them they are monsters?
Catholicism spawned the Inquisition to convert what they thought to be morally devoid heathens.
There are NO moral absolutes.
i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?
murder, rape, incest?
how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.
For example, when is incest ever justifiable?
Again, a person's individual beliefs of what is moral or immoral are coming into play here.
As an example for incest, say the nuclear holocaust takes place (not that I wish for it, but it is plausible) and there are survivors, but an extremely limited amount. A brother and sister managed to survive but are alone in a region and truly believe they are the last humans on earth. Would it be morally wrong for them to procreate so as to attempt to continue the human race? Or would it be wrong because society dictated that sex between siblings is always inappropriate, a moral absolute, no matter the circumstances?
There are no moral absolutes, only standards in people's minds of what is right or wrong.
the florida supreme court has ruled that as long as they can pay for it, children as young as 12 can receive elective plastic surgery without parental consent.
sound far fetched?
not really, considering that the florida courts have indeed ruled that 12 year olds can get an abortion without parental consent.
LOL @ Mary.
That assumption would be correct.
I am an agnostic/atheist if you really want to know.
i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?
murder, rape, incest?
how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.
Even in Reborn's example, the two options he presented both were harmful (or what I would label as "wrong"), so I don't see that scenario as being about helpful or harmful. I see it more as the lesser of two evils. Pick your poison, if you will.
Not true. This is where the majority of people (myself included) make an error. I thought the exact same thing when I took an ethics course in graduate school and proceeded to argue with my professor on this very topic. The example I gave is that which was given tro me. I know how you feel and rationalize this BigTex, so I sympathize, all the moreso knowing your personal experience.
Moral absolutes do not exist, because there is no action that is unacceptable under any and all circumstances period.
In the example I gave, was it "moral" to sit and allow the rape to take place? Was it the "morally appropriate" thing to do to protest even if it meant death? If being raped would subsequently save the lives of 4 people, it makes it the right thing, therefore, moral, because it saved lives. Others would argue this and say it was the lesser of two evils, but it can also be perceived as a necessary action of sacrifice to save life. This only serves to prove my original assertion that morals are preconceived notions ingrained in people due to factors in their environment (i.e. religious upbringing, culture, etc.)
To sit and say unequivocally that there exist absolutes under which any and all circumstances something is wrong is narrow-minded in my opinion.
Just my additional 2c on the topic.
the florida supreme court has ruled that as long as they can pay for it, children as young as 12 can receive elective plastic surgery without parental consent.
sound far fetched?
not really, considering that the florida courts have indeed ruled that 12 year olds can get an abortion without parental consent.
When it comes to 12 year olds in our society having sex and then proceeding with an abortion, I completely agree with you, it should NOT be happening.
However when you reference the 10 Commandments, it IS forcing religion upon a person. Teaching the Ten Commandments involves invoking the idea that God talked to man (Moses) and specificly gave directions about what is or is not acceptable. Why choose Christianity's version over another religion? This would be the same if a school taught Islamic commandments that women should wear burqas and always obey men.
I repeat. DO NOT use religion as an analogy here when saying abortions are legal, but teaching the Ten Commandments is not.
Children can be taught basic morals which are generally accepted in our society without bringing any God or religion into the equation.
the florida supreme court has ruled that as long as they can pay for it, children as young as 12 can receive elective plastic surgery without parental consent.
sound far fetched?
not really, considering that the florida courts have indeed ruled that 12 year olds can get an abortion without parental consent.
Isn't that wonderful that it's legal for a 12 year old to get an abortion, but it's illegal if you try teaching the Ten Commandments to her?
While I do not necessarily agree with the ruling for 12 year olds. I do not want to have religion shoved down children's throats at school either.
Please refrain from attempting to mix religion into this conversation. In fairness parents have the right to not have religious beliefs imposed on their children while they are trying to get an education.
Period. Be it Christianity (the 10 Commandments) Islam, or the like.
You probably would not want schools forcing kids to learn the Koran.
ok, i won't give his name, but he is a major with an engineer unit in iraq.
here's what he has to say on iraq, i've highlighted a few interesting points.
it has been a while since i have written to my friends about what's really going on here in iraq.
While I agree that rudeness is unnecessary, are we going to be more concerned with people getting angered and venting emotion when they read someone attempting to put over propaganda on them?
Or are we going to be more concerned with the person posting intentionally deceptive statements?
Priorities should be in order. Lying outweighs anger and rudeness in my opinion. Ever for the Bible-thumpers, the lie originated with Satan the Devil.
Getting angered as a result of a lie or being lied to is a justifiable emotion. Especially when someone takes you for naive and tries to pass over a quick one on you solely to support their cause.
Left-wing wackos? You post to reprimand those who "insult" and are "rude" then categorize criticizers who have clearly caught someone in a lie as wackos?
Okay...
