How men are raped while women go free.
Posted by BambiB 10 years, 2 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?
This is a FEMALE agenda.
You're quite right with regard to the logic not following… but if logic were involved, we would have no laws that prefer one gender over another - OR - we would all agree that one gender is inferior and "needs assistance" in the same way that a physically or mentally handicapped individual might.
So no more "affirmative action". No more gender-preferences in hiring. No more preferences in determining custody. No more alimony. And by the way, employers would be free to hire/fire based on ability, without worrying about any sex-discrimination lawsuits. So no more Federal Government forcing battery-recyclers to hire women (and no more "Hooters Guys" lawsuits).
Thank you!
For formal treatment of the disparity in mental operation between the genders (just one example, but a convincing one) see the CEEB study of gender differences in results for the Physics Level II Achievement Exam. CEEB was desperately trying to gender norm the test - to no avail.
For a broader treatment, see http://ec2-184-73-88-202.compute-1.amazo...
what's the "hooter's guy" lawsuits?
As for the Hooter's Guys lawsuit - years back some guys went in to interview to become "Hooters Guys". When they were turned down, they filed a gender-discrimination suit… or maybe just threatened to?? Anyway, it was settled out of court, but Hooters put out a T-Shirt referring to the government-related BS that even gave the guys a leg to stand on. Of course, it's the same leg that women stand on when they insist on jobs for which they are ill-suited… like any woman in any branch of the military.
The problem occurs when the PC police try to gender neutralize combat roles for women. The reality is that not only are women not suited physically, but also psychologically. War is terrible, many men cannot handle the effects. Most women cannot.
Put one thing out of place, raise the tension a jot, put them in an unusual attitude and they fall far, far, far behind. Women have a greater tolerance for routine. Men have superior spatial reasoning skills. The top combat pilots will always be men (until and unless evolution sees fit to change things). Here's an exampe of what I mean: The very first Navy female carrier-rated pilot, Karen Hultgreen, nearly killed her GIB on her first carrier landing when she ignored the FDO's wave-off order, over-controlled her F-14, flamed out an engine and crashed into the drink. Fortunately, she was killed, and so not able to endanger other lives. There are indications that the SECOND female carrier-rated Navy pilot wasn't much better... but so far as I know, she hasn't killed anyone yet.
As for combat roles - you are of course correct. But it goes further than women not being capable. One of the morale problems in the military stems from the high praise women get for sub-par performance.
Anyone remember how the left-wing press and the liberal politicos desperate to show female success in the military latched onto the story of Jessica Lynch? Nothing against her personally (except for the fact that she apparently did a crappy job of maintaining her M-16... based on her statements that it "jammed" without her ever firing a shot), but what male in the history of the world would have received an award for valor for:
1) Being involved in a car wreck,
2) Being captured, and,
3) Being rescued?
Because that's all she did. She might as well have been a bag of cabbages for all the "valor" she displayed.
Worse, the driver (also a female) received the same decoration for panicking and crashing her Hum-vee into the back of a truck, killing everyone in the vehicle except Lynch, who was knocked unconscious in the crash. (But the driver was a "native-american" so they renamed Squaw Mountain after her. As what? A testament to her incompetence??)
The initial accounts of a "blonde woman" attributed to Lynch, heroically engaging Iraq troops and fighting to the death were quietly dropped when it because clear that the person heroically engaging the enemy at long odds was Sgt Donald Walters http://www.rense.com/general39/private.h... who had been inadvertently abandoned 15 miles behind enemy lines.
As for JL, yes, she was way over praised for the circumstances. At best, she should have received a purple heart and nothing more. A situation of PC run amok. Which is a shame for those females that really do exhibit bravery in combat conditions.
Cry foul, but women carry the babies within their own bodies, so women will always have a ‘home’ advantage. I don’t think whether or not the action ended the pregnancy should have factored into the sentence compared to the rights of the individual (the woman) not to be psychically molested by poisoning. It was an assault upon her person, pregnancy aside.
He should have gotten probation.
One's DNA is statutory, new, useful and non-obvious.
Monsanto patents DNA all the time. In fact, they sue others who are the victims of wind-blown DNA.
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.
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.
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).
(I ask because they're advertising the gawdawful remake on tv)
If it is realizable then probably it is probably patentable, but again I don't have much knowledge of what it is.
that last statement is incorrect and propaganda. In all of those cases it was proven the farmers purposely violated contracts with Monsanto. all of them want the the benefit of the technology-but they do not want to keep paying for it. Don't use the seeds. Easy, breezy, beautiful!
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.
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.
First, if women truly want equality before the law, they should be screaming about this. Now's your chance ladies.
A prosecutor forcing a plea deal with the threat of young man's entire life is far beyond any intent of our Founders in their thoughts and writings on the judicial system of this country, It's certainly time to bring prosecutors back to ground level to their true positions.