propostion 73

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thanks. It would be nice if our "news" organizations gave an actual vote count rather than something has been defeated (or approved as the case may be) "overwhelmingly" or "narrowly" but it is good to see that there are some states who see through the tricks of the anti-abortion movement.

You can actually get that if you go to www.latimes.com. There is a link under the picture of Dictator Schwarzenegger that opens up a dialogue box with all the vote counts... You'll have to scroll down a bit to find the propositions, but they are there.

Originally posted by newdad27
So the government putting itself between a parent and their child is what Madsonian democracy is all about. That is what you would have us believe? No, it's about not getting between a parent and their child, less government is better.

Wib, he doesn't need decaf - he needs shock treatment. He still thinks Proposition 73 is a "less government" measure.

Originally posted by newdad27
So the government putting itself between a parent and their child is what Madsonian democracy is all about. That is what you would have us believe? No, it's about not getting between a parent and their child, less government is better.

The distance between the child and a parent in the case where a pregnant teenager doesn't want to tell her parents has been erected by the individual persons. You want the government to "do" something about it. You have failed to present any coherent argument why the government ignoring the matter is not what it obviously is: less government.

Originally posted by Algernon
You can actually get that if you go to www.latimes.com. There is a link under the picture of Dictator Schwarzenegger that opens up a dialogue box with all the vote counts... You'll have to scroll down a bit to find the propositions, but they are there.

I found the official vote totals at http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

Prop 73 was beaten by about 325,000 votes or approximately 5%. Not exactly "overwhelming" as CBS said, but a pretty solid margin. Polls two weeks before the election showed it ahead by 15-25 points, but the message got out to the people in time. Score 1 for the occasional good sense of the California voter!

Originally posted by no1marauder
A Proposition or any other proposed law that severely restricts fundamental rights is as un-American as it gets. You right-wingers never seem to understand that the very purpose of a Madsonian democracy based on Lockean principles is to have a limited government who's main purpose is to protect the people's natural rights. Try reading Tom Paine instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh and you might figure it out.

This post displays a lot of ignorance conserning the American system of government..
Any Proposition or law is going to restrict someones right to do what they want .. that's the point of a law nimrod!
In this case it just happens to be your ox that's being gored. If the Proposition was one you agreed with you'd be OK with severely restricting my "fundamental rights."
Calling me names doesn't help your argument at all .. it only displays the weakness of whatever point you may have had.
Try logic, maybe a little less hysteria .. it's kinda girly

Originally posted by Algernon
Jammer, that isn't the point I am debating. The argument I am refuting is the irrational argument that Proposition 73 would reduce government interference in civil life. In fact, Proposition 73 would have done the opposite by creating a new role for government in policing parental notification.

That question is not affected by the issue you are rais ...[text shortened]... very essence of the proposition was to impose a legal requirement that does not currently exist.

As I said in my last post .. ANY Proposition or Law is going to restrict someone from doing something they want to do .. therefore your point is moot.
You're arguing the obvious. Of course a new Law will cause the Government to "interfere" in civil life.
It's what laws and Governments do .. they govern.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No1 might be alot of things, but one thing he's not is ignorant of the law.

Stand back 100 feet RHP'ers...No1 is about to launch a fireball...3...2...1...

*trembling with fear* .. oooooooooooooOOO NOOOOOOOOO.

Does that mean you agree with what his view of what American Law is sasquactch672?

Originally posted by jammer
This post displays a lot of ignorance conserning the American system of government..
Any Proposition or law is going to restrict someones right to do what they want .. that's the point of a law nimrod!
In this case it just happens to be your ox that's being gored. If the Proposition was one you agreed with you'd be OK with severely restricting my "funda ...[text shortened]... f whatever point you may have had.
Try logic, maybe a little less hysteria .. it's kinda girly

You obviously don't know what a "right" is. This type of ignorance from right-wingers is pervasive on this site. Any law that restricts a "fundamental right" (again please read Locke or Paine to understand what a Fundamental Right is) is violative of the Social Contract and thus invalid. It is presumed by the theory the American government is based on that people don't join into organizations to be less free as that would be irrational. I remain astounded that people who profess to be "patriotic" don't seem to have the first clue as to the political philosophy this country is based on.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Score 1 for the occasional good sense of the California voter!

This time around, you can score a few points, as we defeated a few other badly-written, poorly-conceived, or just plain dunderheaded ballot initiatives.

Originally posted by jammer
As I said in my last post .. ANY Proposition or Law is going to restrict someone from doing something they want to do .. therefore your point is moot.
You're arguing the obvious. Of course a new Law will cause the Government to "interfere" in civil life.
It's what laws and Governments do .. they govern.

Right. And a new law in which government intervenes in a relationship between certain medical patients and physicians, by enforcing a requirement and keeping track of certain medical procedures, is a law that expands government's role where it currently has none.

Originally posted by Algernon
Right. And a new law in which government intervenes in a relationship between certain medical patients and physicians, by enforcing a requirement and keeping track of certain medical procedures, is a law that expands government's role where it currently has none.

As any new law would .. it happens all the time.
It doesn't mean the new Law is wrong just because it restricts people from doing something the rest of us have voted as illegal.
As I said, it's a moot point because every Law restricts something .. it's not a (good) argument not to have Laws.

12 yr olds with the kelp of corrupt doctors can now bypass their parents and get an abortion legally in California. They are forbidden by Law from getting their ears pierced or having a tattoo without parental consent .. you tell me .. which procedure is more life threatening?

Originally posted by jammer
As any new law would .. it happens all the time.
It doesn't mean the new Law is wrong just because it restricts people from doing something the rest of us have voted as illegal.
As I said, it's a moot point because every Law restricts something .. it's not a (good) argument not to have Laws.

12 yr olds with the kelp of corrupt doctors can now bypass their parents and get an abortion legally in California...

It is now clear that you have forgotten what I was arguing about in the first place, which was "Newdad's" preposterous assertion that Proposition 73 shrank government involvement in the private lives of its citizens.

Heck, I did not even assert that the new law would have been wrong! I am not going to enter a debate with you on the merits of Proposition 73. If you are interested, I posted my concerns about the measure previously and you can find those posts.

So what's all this about doctors using seaweed to perform abortions? I did not think kelp had such strong properties. Tell us more.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The distance between the child and a parent in the case where a pregnant teenager doesn't want to tell her parents has been erected by the individual persons. You want the government to "do" something about it. You have failed to present any coherent argument why the government ignoring the matter is not what it obviously is: less government.

i dont want the government to do anything. doctors are always required to notify parents before performing surgery on children. Thus, I just want the status quo. You want government to change the status quo and give childrent rights the otherwise do not have; an ability to go behind their parents back and perform major surgery withough telling them. You want government intervention.