How men are raped while women go free.
Posted by BambiB 10 years, 3 months ago to Government
There is SO MUCH wrong with this case. It highlights how the law treats men differently from women, fining, punishing, imprisoning the former for acts that are considered the "right" of any woman.
This guy tricked his girlfriend into taking an abortifacient inducing the abortion of his 7-week-old fetus.
Let's compare.
If a woman tricks a man into thinking she can't get pregnant (on the pill, using an IUD, etc.), there's no penalty. She can force him to become a father against his will and bill him for child support for 18 years.
If a woman decides to murder the man's baby (have an abortion) there is nothing the man can do about it. The woman has sole control.
But is a man tricks a woman into taking an abortifacient resulting in the abortion of his fetus, he can be sentenced to life in prison!??
Why is it that women get all the options? Why is it that men wind up being forced to be parents against their will? Why is it that only women lie about birth control and get away with it? Why is it that only women can kill their fetuses?
The Federal Law in this case should be challenged on two levels. First, someone please show me where in the Constitution the Founders granted the Congress authority over abortions (or even murder, for that matter)?
Second, how is it that a woman can abort her fetus without consequence, while a man who aborts his fetus can be sentenced to life in prison?
This guy tricked his girlfriend into taking an abortifacient inducing the abortion of his 7-week-old fetus.
Let's compare.
If a woman tricks a man into thinking she can't get pregnant (on the pill, using an IUD, etc.), there's no penalty. She can force him to become a father against his will and bill him for child support for 18 years.
If a woman decides to murder the man's baby (have an abortion) there is nothing the man can do about it. The woman has sole control.
But is a man tricks a woman into taking an abortifacient resulting in the abortion of his fetus, he can be sentenced to life in prison!??
Why is it that women get all the options? Why is it that men wind up being forced to be parents against their will? Why is it that only women lie about birth control and get away with it? Why is it that only women can kill their fetuses?
The Federal Law in this case should be challenged on two levels. First, someone please show me where in the Constitution the Founders granted the Congress authority over abortions (or even murder, for that matter)?
Second, how is it that a woman can abort her fetus without consequence, while a man who aborts his fetus can be sentenced to life in prison?
As to whether I've invented it or not, if I did not, who did? My parents perhaps?
The argument is much stronger than others accepted by the Supremes (such as the interstate commerce clause in Wickard v. Filburn).
You'd think this would be straightforward. Monsanto creates a product that pollutes, and when the pollutant drifts into an adjoining property causing damage to the crops (which are now no longer organic) and loss of income (because the crops can't be sold as organic and therefore have a lower market value) Monsanto should be required to pay damages, clean up the mess and ensure it doesn't happen again.
Additionally, the benefit of the GMO seeds appears to be transient. The major advantages of Monsanto seeds are they are "Roundup Ready" (glyphosate tolerant) and produce an insecticide toxin in cooperation with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). I've read that Bt targets the gut in insects, causing them to break down. It's supposedly targeted to specific insects - but one must wonder - could this be a reason for the surging digestive problems and autism in humans? I think the jury is still out on that one.
In any case, Mother Nature isn't fooled for long. The western corn root worm has apparently already developed an immunity to Bt.
As for the glyphosate tolerance, the major advantage appears to be that since farmers can spray their crops for weeds instead of having to mechanically remove them, they can plant crops closer together creating greater yield per acre. Is glyphosate tolerance in the wind? Could be.
I think a certain amount of skepticism is warranted regarding the company that brought us DDT, PCBs and Agent Orange.
If it is realizable then probably it is probably patentable, but again I don't have much knowledge of what it is.
My thinking is that it has not yet been litigated, and that if anyone has an intellectual property interest in their own DNA, it is the person who manufacturers it daily.
The state-of-the art pre-Myriad is pretty well explained here:
http://io9.com/5971456/what-you-need-to-...
After myriad, things are much murkier. It appears snippets of DNA can't be patented, but the logic of the case doesn't seem to rule out an entire genome. It even (if I read it correctly) makes exception for cDNA, which is (as one of the experts opined) not really different from naturally-occuring DNA.
Part of the problem is the Supreme Court does not understand the technical issues. Frankly, I'm not surprised. I never saw so many people so disinclined to use technology as at the local law school. That the Supremes are technology-morons (and disinclined to actually understand the technology they're ruling on) should surprise no one.
(I ask because they're advertising the gawdawful remake on tv)
Note, I'm not talking about something like the Myriad case, where the company sought to patent a small chunk of DNA. Nor am I talking about patenting the human genome generally. I am talking about a patent on your own specific, unique DNA which never existed before you, and will never be produced again once you are dead.
To claim that it is not novel is clearly wrong. It is perhaps the most novel thing ever to exist. To claim that it is "obvious" would also seem to be false - for one would have to know everything about the DNA of both parents at the very least to know what their genetic product was.
Monsanto may have a right to their genetically modified DNA. My problem with Monsanto lies in their pollution of other crops - not their ownership of patented DNA modifications.
Again.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/...
Given that the farmers of organic produce are being damaged by Monsanto's windblown material, I expect this case will rise again and be fully litigated - with Monsanto the loser. With Monsanto buying the courts on a regular basis, it may take time. Eventually an honest judge will screw them to the wall.
Load more comments...