Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Additional laws South Dakota needs 61

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
Molly Ivins puts forth an example of what would be banned by South Dakota's new anti-abortion law. I'm not normally pro-choice- in fact, I very much support South Dakota's anti-abortion law. But every good has a cost- anything truly good is not profitable. If they're really serious about cutting abortions as opposed to merely giving the Supreme Court a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade- then South Dakota needs at least two more laws to cover the issues Molly brings up in this article.

Here's my suggestion- actually one law of punishment, and one new welfare program as a reward to women who report the first crime.

The first is the law of punishment- having sex with a woman who does not want children should be defined as rape if that sex results in pregnancy, even when it is consensual and birth control is used. Any man convicted of this form of rape must stay employed for the next 19 years and pay child support. Any break in employment or lack of payment of more than 6 months of child support should result in the man being arrested, put into a state-owned work farm, where he will be paid minimum wage for his time and 95% of his paycheck will be garnished for child support. Proof of this crime sufficient for this sentence should be a mandatory paternity test.

Secondly, a welfare program for women who merely report the first crime. This welfare program for the first instance will be eligibility for an additional year on WIC for all children the woman has in her care, classes in day care, drug and alcohol treatment programs if needed, and if sufficient grades are achieved in the day care classes, $20,000 grants to start state-registered day care businesses. IF a second instance happens, then an additional year of WIC is included, along with classes in human reproduction with an emphasis on abstinence and self-defense techniques.

The additional year of WIC should give enough time for the man to work his way through the court system and begin child care payments. If he is proven innocent, the woman will have to report a second man- thus starting a new year of WIC coverage for the child- and obviously she doesn't know very much about her own body and how human reproduction works, so she needs additional classes on that subject (or alternatively, she was raped, and needs self-defense classes to keep it from happening again).

My bet is that if all this was available for "Michelle", the single mother in Molly's example- she would not have aborted her third child, and may not have even had sex to begin with on the third child. But the man *HAS* to be held responsible- we need to restore the old rule that sex is a 20 year commitment, and if you're not prepared to make that commitment you have *no* business being in a sexual relationship.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Additional laws South Dakota needs More

Additional laws South Dakota needs

Comments Filter:
  • ... and here's why ...

    Guy loses his job while the woman's still pregnant, he's looking at jail and forced labour for 20 years. He now has a reason to kill her - he can either plead it down to manslaughter and take 5-10 IF he gets caught, or go to trial and get a maximum of 25, but the possibility of being found not guilty. If instead he just beats her enough so that she miscarries, he's looking at manslaughter. 2-5 years, maybe even just probation.

    So congratulations (NOT!) on coming up with yet another

    • I think he was being sarcastic ;) at least I hope so ..
      Why not have women convicted for getting pregnant and forcing men to pay child support for the rest of their life..
      In fact let us Sue the Sperm .. or the government for people being too stupid to take precautions.
      Or the condom company for them misusing the condom and breaking it ...
      LETS SUE EVERYONE.
      Life is so much easier when everyone is a criminal
      • I'd be surprised if there was one single person out there who was never broken a single law in their entire life.

        Speeding is probably one of the more common violations that almost all adults do at some time or another.

        So you see, we already are all criminals! Or at least law-breakers, depending on how narrowly you wish to define criminal (e.g. civil v. criminal offenses)
        • And I'd say making a woman pregnant should have far more serious consequences than merely speeding without causing an accident (just as skipping out on the sex so as not to cause pregnancy shouldn't be considered the same as causing a pregnancy, and just as reckless driving is a much more serious offense than speeding).
      • To some extent yes- I was being sarcastic in this. But the point is that I'm angry at both sides- the pro-choice side that lets fathers get away without consequence for their actions merely by getting the woman an abortion. And the pro-life side who wants to criminalize abortion without paying for the population increase. As usual, this is a solution that goes right down the center- adds an even worse prosecution for men who father children without intending to pay for them or take responsibility for hav
    • BTW - would you and your wife be prepared to live with that law - that YOU have to go to jail if you lose your job for more than 6 months, and tht you have a criminal record for rape?

      If I'm out of work for more than six months, I'd see that as being proof that I need HELP taking care of my child- and thus look upon the forced-work program as at least HAVING WORK TO DO TO HELP MY CHILD. I find the deadbeat dad syndrome to be the worst part of the abortion saga- and the point is that we need to change tha
      • So you don't believe that a recession or depression or hospitalization or accident is a valid excuse to be out of work?

        The way to change the "deadbeat dad" syndrome is to remove the whole adversarial process, and to make joint custody the norm - each parent is responsible for 50% of everything. Both get a job. Both have the kids half the time. No money changes hands. No fights.

        Kids are NOT the property of either parent, and its about time that everyone gets that stupid assumption out of their heads. Tha

        • So you don't believe that a recession or depression or hospitalization or accident is a valid excuse to be out of work?

          Those are valid excuses- but the solution to those excuses is work programs (well, maybe not hospitalization- but certainly the cure for recession and depression is actually providing work for people).

          The way to change the "deadbeat dad" syndrome is to remove the whole adversarial process, and to make joint custody the norm - each parent is responsible for 50% of everything. Both get a

          • The way to get Michelle help is:

            1. access to better birth control
            2. access to better jobs
            3. access to the morning-after pill
            4. access to abortion early on

            Maybe she doesn't WANT to be legally tied to the kids' father. Maybe he's not who she thought he was, maybe he's got an incurable disease and will be dead in a few years, maybe ... maybe its nobody else's business to tell her what she HAS to do, and who she HAS to stay with.

            Sex isn't just for procreation, just like eating isn't just for fueling the body

            • just like eating isn't just for fueling the body

              Actually, that is EXACTLY what eating is for. Those who forget that little fact end up like me- fat.

              reading isn't just for bettering your job skills.

              No, reading is for learning and recording information- but that's all it is really good for. We have much better forms of entertainment out there now.

              Get over it, and get over trying to tell others what to do. You don't have that right, and neither do the fat pigs sitting in the legislature of S.D.

              Yeah

              • Just like eating isn't just for fueling the body

                Actually, that is EXACTLY what eating is for. Those who forget that little fact end up like me- fat.

                That's your problem, not mine. I'm not fat. So, based on experience and empirical evidence, those in favour of restricting other people's rights are the ones lacking self-control.

                reading isn't just for bettering your job skills.

                No, reading is for learning and recording information- but that's all it is really good for. We have much better forms of e

                • That's your problem, not mine. I'm not fat. So, based on experience and empirical evidence, those in favour of restricting other people's rights are the ones lacking self-control.

                  If that was the case, there'd be no need for a right to abortion- because as you say, people with self control don't need rights.

                  So you don't read anything on the net for entertainment?

                  I read stuff on the net to learn about things that I can't learn about otherwise.

                  And no, TV is not "better" - it sux.

                  For the purpose of mi
                  • I won't bother quoting each section, just the most pertinent ...

                    That you lack self-control when it comes to your weight is your problem. If you decide to do something about it, that's your business. Or should we criminalize certain diet foods, because they let people avoid the consequences of pigging out? That someone else decides to get an abortion to terminate a pregnancy is their business. Mind your own business. Let them mind theirs. You have no "god-given" right to interfere in someone else's decisio

                    • That you lack self-control when it comes to your weight is your problem. If you decide to do something about it, that's your business. Or should we criminalize certain diet foods, because they let people avoid the consequences of pigging out?

                      Diet foods should be outlawed because they are faudulent- nothing marketed as "diet" foods works for reducing weight.

                      That someone else decides to get an abortion to terminate a pregnancy is their business.

                      Incorrect- and saying so is hate speech- just as my sugge

                    • Your statement about hunting permits is unambiguous.

                      If you think its defensible in the context, you can put it to the test - email me the whole paragraph, so the context doesn't get lost. Use this email address: hudson AT videotron DOT ca

                      I'll be quite happy to forward it to the police upon receipt.

                      Do you have the courage of your convictions? For some reason, I doubt it.

                    • Your statement about hunting permits is unambiguous.

                      Yes, it is- completely. The first part of the sentence says that the second part is immoral. And it's not just the one paragraph- the context includes YOUR question asking me for MY beliefs- which says that you're open to listening to my beliefs no matter what they are.

                      If you think its defensible in the context, you can put it to the test - email me the whole paragraph, so the context doesn't get lost. Use this email address: hudson AT videotron DOT
                    • So email it. I'm waiting. It will be forwarded to the RCMP as soon as I read it, along with the necessary links.
                    • It was sent over 10 minutes ago- must have gotten stuck someplace along the way. My e-mail server is on several blacklists due to a hacking incident early on...but it might still get there. Maybe.
                    • I think there's only one neccessary link- the original discussion in which you ASKED for my opinion. At the very least, that'd be called entrapment- as would this set. But since Canada won't extradite muderers to Oregon, I doubt very much that Oregon would extradite me to Canada- and since I've got no ability to leave Oregon on my own anyway, there's not much threat there.
                    • My concerns are:
                      1. you never set foot in my country
                      2. you don't have access to any firearms should you decide to "take matters into your own hands"
                      3. those around you are free of psychological abuse or fear

                      You're sick, and you might be a danger to yourself, or those around you. All the threads have already been saved to disk, and tomorrow I will be sending out the complaints.

                      BTW - I am not a law officer, so there's no entrapment. Also, I gave you full disclosure of my intent.

                    • Well, if honest opinions are now censored in Canada- then perhaps you don't have as tollerant and free of a nation as I thought. But it doesn't matter- your immigration policy will still let me across the border for short visits, the incredible lack of security on the Northern Border of the United States and the Southern Border of Canada (largest undefended border in the world!) wouldn't stop me even if I decided to carry a nuke across the border, and worse than that- the RCMP/Canadian Constitution carrys

                    • We DO have the option of having kooks like you on our joint "watch list".

                      I've forward it to the politicians to see how they will handle it.

                    • We DO have the option of having kooks like you on our joint "watch list".

                      Yes, but that watch list is particularily useless when only one car in 5000 gets searched crossing the border, or when the person doesn't fly or use those forms of public transportation. Oh yeah, and another big hole on the watch list is that the laws are reactive (in other words, I'd have to be suspected of the murder of at least one person for it to go into effect. Add to that aside from the inherited sniper riffle that I can't a

                    • Its actually quite easy to get on the watch list of either country - and quite hard to get off it. Ask Ted Kennedy. Or Cat Stevens.

                      As for NAFTA, this has nothing to do with it, or of applying Canadian law to a foreign country. That's why I asked you to email your statement to me - and I had made it quite clear in the original thread that it was something that you could NOT legally say in Canada, even via the internet. You can't claim ignorance of the law, because I had already warned you of the potential

                    • As for NAFTA, this has nothing to do with it, or of applying Canadian law to a foreign country. That's why I asked you to email your statement to me - and I had made it quite clear in the original thread that it was something that you could NOT legally say in Canada, even via the internet. You can't claim ignorance of the law, because I had already warned you of the potential consequences, and that I would be referring the matter if you did email it. In other words, your actions were with intent.

                      What I se

                    • I've smuggled people across the Canadian border before

                      It's not hard for Americans to smuggle people into the US from Canada - but that's YOUR border that leaks thanks to your activities, not ours. Not a single 9/11 terrorist came from Canada - they all passed through YOUR immigration procedures.

            • BTW, the whole intent of this is that at present time, South Dakota is providing NONE of the above answers. I'm saying that option #2 on your list is compatible with the pro-life agenda, and even better yet, is Michelle's right under the UDHR. You concentrated so hard on the punishment for the father that you apparently MISSED the jobs program portion.

              But I guess the real question is, why do you think people need to be protected from taking responsibility for what they choose to do? I realize you are go

              • The idea that you can magically "create" sustainable daycare jobs with $20k grants is dumb. Eventually, the program would devolve into everyone taking in everyone else's kids ... not a model for sustainable development. Also, the idea of forcing people into taking low-paying, low-skilled daycare jobs because YOU don't think they should have the right to an abortion is also wrong.

                People still have to come up with the money after the grant runs out. So, in the case of Michelle, that would be 3 kids she wo

                • The idea that you can magically "create" sustainable daycare jobs with $20k grants is dumb.

                  Well, actually, we're creating a daycare in my house right now on much less- about $1000. The additional $19,000 is to cover living expenses during the studying, inspection, and registration phase- which can easily take 6 months.

                  Eventually, the program would devolve into everyone taking in everyone else's kids ... not a model for sustainable development.

                  You're assuming that nobody stays together and supports th
                  • Just to make a few comments:

                    When you say that someone is getting food grants for all those kids, it means its not sustainable, and has to be subsidized.

                    Also, I never meantioned the word privacy when I spoke of constitutional rights - it was freedom of expression, which even you will admit enjoys some protection.

                    There is no child involved - a fertilized egg is not a person, any more than someone who is brain-dead is. As for the father, he can have a say when he's the one carrying the child. Until then

                    • When you say that someone is getting food grants for all those kids, it means its not sustainable, and has to be subsidized.

                      Thus my original meaning for writing this JE. If the SD legislature is going to force women to have more kids, then they need to support those kids. The cost of having a pro-life society is providing for the extra children. It makes me angry that we can have pro-lifers who don't understand that very basic point.

                      Also, I never meantioned the word privacy when I spoke of constituti
  • racist! Don't you know the highest ratio of single mom's is in the black community, and it's black men who are most frequently the fathers! As if blacks aren't already going to jail in disproportionate numbers!

    (Just playing liberal's advocate here... :-)
    • :-) Exactly right. And to play conservative's advocate, this is EXACTLY what Dr. Cosby was talking about a couple years ago. We need to put pressure on the black community to take care of the children they father- we need to break the cycle that started with the slave trade breaking up families.
      • Oh great, there you go blaming the White Man now - it's all about slavery, eh? Institutionalized racism, eh? ;-)

        The democrats who claim to be the champions of minorities and the oppressed probably do more to keep them in this cycle of violence more than to help them get out of it...

        Congress is run like a plantation indeed.

        I hope the republicans run a half-way decent presidential candidate in 2008. The last thing in the world we need is Hillary as president.
        • Oh great, there you go blaming the White Man now - it's all about slavery, eh? Institutionalized racism, eh? ;-)

          Except the institutionalized racism went away in the 1860s in this case- but the cultural damage remained behind. Fredrick Douglas wrote about this problem originally in My Bondage, My Freedom; he felt he didn't know how to be a father because he never actually knew his father (his father had been sold to a different plantation when Fredrick was really young).

          The democrats who claim to be the
        • God I hate those Cracker Bastards
  • http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit. ap/index.html [cnn.com]

    Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
    • I hope he loses the suit- but I'm damned glad he filed it. That is exactly the problem with abortion laws in this country- the woman has all the choices (or punishments thereof) and the men have no choices at all (or worse yet, get off without responsibility in terms of the punishments).
    • Government Is The Problem

      You and I have gone back and forth on this in the past- but I'd like you to take a look This other thread in the discussion. [slashdot.org] My argument is this- that the reason we need government regulation is precisely this type of attitude- people who think they know right from wrong, but have specific blind spots. Far too many libertarians are just people trying to escape responsibility for their actions, because they think those actions don't affect other people when they do.
  • or trying to engage discussion but i really can't this time and as a result I only have this to say...

    Fuck this stupid idea. Fuck the idea that sex is only for procreation (the thrust of you argument methinks). Fuck the idea that sex without procreation is a crime against humanity (from a prior argument).

    We now have sufficient population densities to ensure that no-one need be bound by such inane blather. Millions of prospective children will therefor never be born to those who don't want or who realize

    • Well, I think you've hit upon the thrust of the argument alright- I don't believe anybody should do actions that have certain automatic, natural consequences unless/until they are prepared to deal with those consequences.

      We now have sufficient population densities to ensure that no-one need be bound by such inane blather. Millions of prospective children will therefor never be born to those who don't want or who realize they do not have the capacity or alignment to properly raise a child.

      To a certain e
      • I am not talking about implementing Eugenics. I don't believe the government has any right to take away someone's reproductive capabilities except in very limited circumstances.

        The second you have sex you have crossed the line into procreation- and thus are affecting the life of the person you have sex with AND the life that sex creates

        I disagree. Technology (hell ancient technology in the form of lambskin condoms) and lifestyle alignments no longer mean that sex=procreation.

        Ignoring those responsibil

        • I am not talking about implementing Eugenics. I don't believe the government has any right to take away someone's reproductive capabilities except in very limited circumstances.

          Actually, when you support Abortion for Economic Reasons, you're supporting exactly that. You might want to look back at the speeches of the woman who founded Planned Parenthood for the real agenda of that organization.

          I disagree. Technology (hell ancient technology in the form of lambskin condoms) and lifestyle alignments no l
          • Well, actually, we have an objective answer to that question in the form of Evolution (unless of course you're one of those YEC nuts- all the rest of the intelligent designers at least accept the idea that children are neccessary to the continuation of your personal DNA past death). The purpose of life, from the earliest germ plasm and certainly including every sentient being whose body is based on DNA in the universe, is to procreate.

            See I don't think that evolution and procreation of life are the purpos

            • See I don't think that evolution and procreation of life are the purpose of life. I think they enable us to think about and perhaps comprehend the beauty of the universe. And for the record I am no Creationist (let's call ID what it really is) fanatic.

              Well, the problem with calling ID what it really is, isn't. ID covers a HUGE spectrum of people, and while a small vocal minority really ARE YECers, some who believe in ID aren't even religious at all. Also, as the Doonebury cartoon pointed out, ID is kin
              • re: the B5 thing. I thought it was a pretty decent series but I wouldn't say I was a huge fan. But panspermia and aspects of the gaia movement intrigue me. Also I didn't say that senitience was required for survival. Just that sentience of beings may enable greater survivability for the universe itself.

                re: distribution of gene's and contribution to society. Of course the planet is particularly good at distributing a single individuals genetic heritage. See Khan, G. But as sentient beings we have also evol

                • re: distribution of gene's and contribution to society. Of course the planet is particularly good at distributing a single individuals genetic heritage. See Khan, G. But as sentient beings we have also evolved our own methods for distributing knowledge that though in their infancy show signs of promise. These methods may be as effective one day as their genetic counterparts. Perhaps we make use of the same machinery. That way evolution in species would be paralelled with evolution in thought.

                  Agreed- excep
          • I never said I support abortion (for economic reasons or othewise). In fact I prefer that life be allowed to flourish. However, I realize that it will never be my decision and that my preference should in no way be forced upon those who will bear the burden. I am pro-life but not in the "I want to kill abortion doctors" sort of way. I am pro-lifechoice. Because it truly is a life choice you make when you decide to keep a baby or terminate the pregnancy.

            • I never said I support abortion (for economic reasons or othewise). In fact I prefer that life be allowed to flourish. However, I realize that it will never be my decision and that my preference should in no way be forced upon those who will bear the burden. I am pro-life but not in the "I want to kill abortion doctors" sort of way. I am pro-lifechoice. Because it truly is a life choice you make when you decide to keep a baby or terminate the pregnancy.

              Then I would point this out: In any economic system
              • UDHR says nothing of who is responsible for the provision of these services. However, given that a governing body of representatives approved the document (first draft of which was written by fellow Canadian John Peters Humphrey) perhaps we can infer that a government who signed the document is responsible for rendering either direct assistance or creating an environment that allows for UDHR sec25 to be true. Since the the US .gov by way of SD is obviously not creating an environment that allows for UDHR se
    • I can tell right from wrong

      Actually, anybody who argues for the idea that sex is for recreation only is my very definition of somebody who can't tell right from wrong- who can't see enough of the big picture to understand the consequences of their actions. It's very similar to a stockholder in the stock market currently- so myoptically focused on the three month balance sheet that they fail to see they're investing in a business that builds bombs to blow people up. By your own words, you've proven to me
      • I never said nor implied that sex is for recreation only. Sex has many functional possibilities.

        I rarely speak in absolutes. The universe is far to big a place for my mind to truely comprehend and as such I must leave open the possibility (nay extreme likelyhood) that my worldview is wrong or sufficiently incorrect.

        • rarely speak in absolutes. The universe is far to big a place for my mind to truely comprehend and as such I must leave open the possibility (nay extreme likelyhood) that my worldview is wrong or sufficiently incorrect.

          A sufficient and sane answer to the problem. Something I would do well to remember.
  • What about the lady who impregnated herself from sperm from a person she had oral sex with, and then claimed he owed child support.

  • No (Score:2)

    by Stargoat ( 658863 )
    No no no no. [findlaw.com] It's about time that the father had some goddamned rights.
    • Well, to a pro-lifer (and certainly the South Dakota Legislature appears to fall into that group) Life Begins At Conception This means, logically speaking, the second a man and a woman have an orgasm, they've taken the natural act that *can forseeably lead to conception*. By the link you gave, then, if you live in a pro-life state, you've got to be damned carefull with your sperm.

      In other words, in a state where abortion is forbidden to this extent, the father and the mother have equal rights- expellatio
  • A proper anti-abortion law:

    "No abortion in this state shall be legal, save for one in which the mother's doctor gives a signed and sworn afidavant that the abortion is necessary for the mother's health. Such signed and sworn afidavites may be reviewed by the State Medical Association, who may discipline and suspend the license of any doctor who wrongly declares an abortion necessary."

    Goes right to the heart of the real abortion controversy -- abortions as a form of birth control -- and keeps the real desci
    • Oh, and about your "rape" label -- way to diminish a horrible act of violence, MH42. How about for an encore, you argue that anyone taking any adverse act on any adult that causes that person to lose thier life in the subsequent six years shall be guilty of murder.

      Or at least, negligent homicide....
  • The first is the law of punishment- having sex with a woman who does not want children should be defined as rape if that sex results in pregnancy

    You exaggerate the role of will on the occasion of pregnancy. Even if it is unwanted, we need to raise our child once we decided to give birth to.

    • You exaggerate the role of will on the occasion of pregnancy. Even if it is unwanted, we need to raise our child once we decided to give birth to.

      The problem, as pointed out by Molly Ivins in the linked article in the original JE- is that some men don't. They simply don't. They disappear instead- leaving the woman to raise the child alone. I'm saying that's not a reasonable thing to do. I went a bit far in it- but the point is, the government *should* have the right, if they're going to force the woma

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise due today. Also the rent.

Close