Rest iN peace, Mr. Jobs

Page 9 of 10  
On 10/19/2011 4:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

It was on the national news some years back. Google it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Depo provira or something like that sticks of plastic that leaked something like the pill.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 6:14 PM, Han wrote:

Sounds right Han, IIRC it was good for a longer period of time than conventional methods.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 5:14 PM, Han wrote:

procreate. I have challenged those who contend no such right exists for examples to support their position. It's their job, not mine, to prove their point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If DepoProvera was ever used in coercive situations, that was long ago and very limited, AFAICT. Look up <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depo-Provera>.
It is still my OPINION that people should be able to care for their offspring. Obviously there is no direct mention of any right to or prohibition of procreation anywhere in the Constitution or any related documents. If that is interpreted to mean that I deny the right to procreation to anyone, than that is a problem with the interpreter.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:22:13 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And it's your job to listen when they do - a job from which you have apparently resigned :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering

See:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:11 -0400, Nova wrote:

And *that* ought to settle *that*!
(but it won't)
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 5:45 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

as a criminal penalty) has been imposed so seldom that its constitutionality has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Aside from its obvious infringement on a person's right to procreate, it may well be "cruel and unusual punishment" which the Constitution specifically prohibits. And even if it was to be upheld, that does not show there is no general right to make personal decisions about procreation, any more than showing that a convicted felon can be imprisoned would show there is no general right to liberty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...

More than 60,000 people have been forcibly sterilized in the US. How many does it take before the constitutionality of it is tested in the Supreme Court to your satisfaction?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 7:38 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

The subject here is whether procreation is a fundamental right. Even Skinner v. Oklahoma recognized that it is: "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."
Do you need more?
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973): "Skinner applied the standard of close scrutiny to a state law permitting forced sterilization of habitual criminals. Implicit in the Court's opinion is the recognition that the right of procreation is among the rights of personal privacy protected under the Constitution."
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 762 (1997) (Souter, concurring): "After Meyer and Pierce, two further opinions took the major steps that lead to the modern law. The first was not even in a due process case but one about equal protection, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942), where the Court emphasized the fundamental nature of individual choice about procreation and so foreshadowed not only the later prominence of procreation as a subject of liberty protection, but the corresponding standard of strict scrutiny, in this Court's Fourteenth Amendment law. See id., at 541, 62 S.Ct., at 1113. Skinner, that is, added decisions regarding procreation to the list of liberties recognized in Meyer and Pierce and loosely suggested, as a gloss on their standard of arbitrariness, a judicial obligation to scrutinize any impingement on such an important interest with heightened care."
Carey v. Population Services, Intern., 431 U.S. 678, 687 (1977) (a longer quote than I gave before): "Appellants argue that this Court has not accorded a right of access to contraceptives the status of a fundamental aspect of personal liberty. They emphasize that Griswold v. Connecticut, struck down a state prohibition of the use of contraceptives, and so had no occasion to discuss laws regulating their manufacture or sale. 381 U.S., at 485, 85 S.Ct., at 1682. Eisenstadt v. Baird, was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, holding that whatever the rights of the individual to access to contraceptivesmay *687 be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike. 405 U.S., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at 1038. Thus appellants argue that neither case should be treated as reflecting upon the State's power to limit or prohibit distribution of contraceptives to any persons, married or unmarried. But see id., at 463-464, 92 S.Ct., at 1043-1044 (White, J., concurring in result). The fatal fallacy in this argument is that it overlooks the underlying premise of those decisions that the Constitution protects the right of the individual . . . to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into . . . the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Id., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at 1038. Griswold did state that by forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, the Connecticut statute there had a maximum destructive impact on privacy rights. 381 U.S., at 485, 85 S.Ct., at 1682. This intrusion into the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms made that statute particularly repulsive. Id., at 485-486, 85 S.Ct., at 1682. But subsequent decisions have made clear that the constitutional protection of individual autonomy in matters of childbearing is not dependent on that element. Eisenstadt v. Baird, holding that the protection is not limited to married couples, characterized the protected right as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. 405 U.S., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at 1038 (emphasis added). Similarly, Roe v. Wade, held that the Constitution protects a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 410 U.S., at 153, 93 S.Ct., at 727 (emphasis added). See also Whalen v. Roe, supra, 429 U.S., at 599-600, 97 S.Ct., at 876-877, and n. 26. These decisions put Griswold in proper perspective. Griswold may no longer be read as holding only that a State may not prohibit a married couple's use of contraceptives. Read in light of its progeny, the teaching of Griswold is that the Constitution protects individual decisions in matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the State. Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the freedom to make such decisions. A total prohibition against sale of contraceptives, for example, would intrude *688 upon individual decisions in matters of procreation and contraception as harshly as a direct ban on their use."
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974): "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause *640 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655. As we noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d 349, there is a right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. By acting to penalize the pregnant teacher for deciding to bear a child, overly restrictive maternity leave regulations can constitute a heavy burden on the exercise of these protected freedoms. Because public school maternity leave rules directly affect one of the basic civil rights of man, Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S., at 541, 62 S.Ct., at 1113, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that such rules must not needlessly, arbitrarily, or capriciously impinge upon this vital area of a teacher's constitutional liberty.'"
U.S. v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 142 (1973): "The Constitution extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home, just as it protects other special privacy rights such as those of marriage, procreation, motherhood, child rearing, and education. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453-454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 381 U.S., at 486, 85 S.Ct., at 1682; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925)."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:20:15 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

There's a Latin phrase for "assuming that which is in dispute" that I can't quite remember, but you're guilty of it.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 3:59 PM, Nova wrote:

That deals with castration for (obviously male) convicted sex offenders. It does not remotely suggest that government is generally empowered to regulate a person's right to make decisions regarding procreation. Government can in proper circumstances limit a person's free speech, but free speech is nevertheless a fundamental right. Same with the right to assemble, to own property, etc. In the criminal law context, people undoubtedly have a right to life and a right to liberty, but the government can in a proper case deprive a convicted felon of liberty and even life. In legal terms, if a person has a fundamental right, government can infringe on that right if it can show a compelling interest, and that the means it chooses are narrowly tailored to protect that interest. Therefore, merely showing that government can restrict a right in narrow circumstances does not disprove the right exists.
I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...

Look, the government sterilized people and has done over 60,000 of them since 1900. If you think the government has no power to do this then find the ruling that put an end to it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 7:40 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

How long ago was the last government-compelled sterilization? 1981? The government has also imprisoned MILLIONS of people, i.e., deprived them of their liberty, and has executed thousands, i.e., deprived them of their lives. It still remains that people have a right to life and a right to liberty. Showing instances where government has deprived people of a right does not prove the right does not exist. If it is a fundamental right, government can interfere with it IF it can satisfy the "compelling interest" test.
Suppose you had a healthy 25 year old daughter with two children and no criminal history, Do you seriously think that if the government chose to forcibly sterilize her to prevent her from conceiving a third child, that it would not violate her constitutional rights?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2011 7:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Your above response is what is know as "back peddling". You got the answer to your question, did not like the answer and therefore changed the question. Nice!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/20/2011 5:38 AM, Leon wrote:

I repeat my last question: Do you seriously think that there is no fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/20/2011 1:59 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Refer to Nova's response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...

The example was in the list of cases you cited, where the court ruled that the only Constitutional objection to a forced sterilization law was that it exempted white collar criminals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...

When you get me appointed to the Supreme Court then my opinion in the matter will have some bearing on the law. Until then it is irrelevant. The courts have not denied the government the power to prevent an individual from procreating, but the courts have required the government to allow individuals to obtain the means to prevent procreation.
If you don't like it then get yourself forcibly sterilized by the government and sue them and maybe this time the courst will rule that they can't do that anymore. I suggest you do it in DC--they seem to have a particularly bonehead DA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.