|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:45 PM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is no suprise.
To feminists and alot of women in general the pain, suffering and death of men and children IS indeed irrelevent, as long as they get what THEY want.
How self centered and arrogant can you get?
Although this is no laughing matter, it reminds me of a joke I once heared.
How many women does it take to screw in a light bulb? Ansewer; Just one, to hold on to the light bulb and wait for the world to revolve around her...,
That joke was funny when I first heard it. Now it seems that it is a tragic truth, in these times.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a reason it's not "Drama King".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:26 PM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton said it is "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.
"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," the judge wrote.
Notice that the child being born is dehumanized by the judge to become little more than a blob of cells. This is the only way that the judge and child killing advocates can justify killing a child in the process of birth. They are alleged killers and should be tried as such.
Why not just make it legal for the mother to kill any child if it is a burden? Oh. I forgot. It already is.
It is black-n-white. When a child is in the process of being born it cannot be said, with any sort of integrity or intellectual honesty, that the child is a fetus, blob of cells, tissue mass. The child is without question beyond the early stages of formation. It is a living being deserving of full human rights. That fact is what in part sets apart a viable civilization from barbaric murderous civilizations.
For Hamilton to say that the pain of the child is irrelevant is like a pigmy tribe saying that pain is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of burying a child alive. It is known that a child suffers pain when buried alive, and the fact of the pain adds to the horror of the act. If more pain were inflicted upon the child during the live burial then it would be clear that the act is that much more horrific. Clearly, Hamilton is an alleged feminist savage that adheres to abhorrent and horrific uncivilized ideals of child killing. Then she thinks that she is being modern and progressive. We have known from the beginning that Hamilton had an alleged agenda of ruling in favor of infanticide and child killing. This ruling is no surprise.
Notice how men are required to pay child support in the name of the best interest of the child no matter what the circumstances. Hamilton would not rule that the right of a man to be free from extreme suffering, caused by horrific amounts of child support, supercedes the interest of the child. Yet this is done even when there is paternity fraud and there is great harm to the entire family!
In Hamilton’s ruling, the interests of children are subordinated to her own alleged personal interest of legalizing infanticide. She pulls this stunt by equivocating on what the child is and labeling it a blob, tissue mass, or fetus. In her mind, if the child is non-human then horrific acts against the child are justified if it saves the mother discomfort. Then she argues that the fetus has no rights that trump that of the mother. If she were not an alleged killer then she would recognize the fetus is in fact a child with rights that subordinate the rights of the mother!
In conclusion, this ruling confirms that feminists want to marginalize men for any reason including the best interest of the child. They do this in a variety of way that include sending them to war, putting them in death occupations to support a family or pay child support, and more. Yet these same alleged killers will not sacrifice their own personal comfort for the best interest of a child. Killers never do. That is why they are capable of murdering a child that is being born. This ruling is outright crazy.
How can it be that in America a single judge can legalize the act of killing and not be tried for murder? I don’t get it. If a judge made it legal to kill a minority group then it would clearly be seen as a ruling that contributes to murder. That judge would be tried and thrown in jail. Yet murder is in fact justified and legalized by a few who wear black robes, and they get off.
Warble
P.S. What is expressed is my own personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we no longer have the institutionalized rule of law, but rather the rule of thugs. Our laws, and government, deserve ZERO respect and allegiance.
Yet murder is in fact justified and legalized by a few who wear black robes, and they get off.
They get off indeed due to the cowardice of those supposedly supporting justice. If there are enough votes in Congress to pass this law, there ought to be enough votes to impeach these black-robed thugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:26 PM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
As radical feminist judges continue to infiltrate the courts, more and more rougue decisions will be made. Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, is married to Anthony Lewis of the New York Times. Since they bought Marshall's judicial appointment to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - with the endorsement and support of the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times and has a conflict of interest - there has been a dramatic upsurge, of epidemic proportions, in the number of fathers who have been permanently separated from their children by a series of fraudulently gained restraining orders. Margaret was the judge who pushed and conspired for same sex marriages and at the same time denies fathers basic human rights.
feminist politicians rarely get elected (unless they remain covert), so feminists seek change through rougue legal reformation. This is where feminism has power and it must be confronted as they do not care about equality. They seek revenge against their falsely conceived notions of the patriarchy.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:10 PM June 3rd, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
feminist politicians rarely get elected (unless they remain covert), so feminists seek change through rougue legal reformation.
This seems like an absurd statement. The idea that a female democrat would not be a feminist is absurd. It is will known that female democrats are without exception feminist. If a person is dumb enough to vote for a female democrat then they are dumb enough to vote for a feminist.
That is why they all join the Woman's Caucus, a female only organization, in every state. There is only one female legislator that isn't a member of this bigoted feminist organization, and she is a Republican.
Warble
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:47 PM June 3rd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Daft headline: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
Better headline: Duly Enacted Lawing Banning Killing a Partially Born Child Declared Unconstitutional while Men Still Face Huge, Government-Imposed Financial and Criminal Penalities for Having Consensual Sex
Subheadline: So-called "best interests of the child" standard not invoked when might provide a minor hardship to a very small number of women; standard appears to be used only to discriminate against large number of men
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
