I love to read the hundreds of stories every year showing how worthless and actually harmful the very liberal ACLU is...here is another one of those moments:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland applauded todayÂ’s decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously ruling that the reckless endangerment statute does not apply to women who take drugs while pregnant.
“The ACLU of Maryland is heartened that the high court agrees that prosecuting drug-dependent pregnant women is not what the state of Maryland considers good policy,” said David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland. “We believe that using criminal law to regulate a pregnant woman’s conduct on the theory that it might harm a fetus or her newborn child is counterproductive, illegal, and, ultimately bad for children and society.”The hell that so many of our youth are forced to live in makes me sick. I teach these kids, many of them with learning disabilities because of women like this. This woman should be locked up until the baby is born. Then the baby should be taken away, and the woman sterilized. Sounds harsh, and maybe not very "American"...but for those of you who don't see what women like this do to children...you would agree if you spent a year working in the inner city.
It is a shame that groups like the ACLU, whom used to have something useful and important to do, are now reduced to protecting criminals, illegal immigrants, and going after Santa and Jesus.
Posts
19 comments:
I am glad we have the ACLU. Someone needs to fight for civil liberties. However they have often gone where I consider too far. I agree with you on this Game. I would rather a woman have an abortion than give birth to a child that will have to spend many decade as a disadvantaged person. If she cares so little about it she should have an abortion. I also think the aclu has gone over the line in the illegal immigrant case out east..you know the one game, you wrote about the mayor a while back. Illegal is illegal.
you throw the abortion thing in there and I can't agree. Put the woman in jail, there are thousands of very responsible parents who can't have kids...give the kids to them...
The problem with that, game, is that too many people don't want to raise a disadvantaged or handicapped child.
I agree with you 100% on this one. I don't think that people on drugs, or who would do anything to harm a child - be they unborn or born - should be allowed to live, much less propagate.
Less of these kinds of allowances for people like that, and maybe we wouldn't have such a screwed up society in general.
Oh, and btw, I don't believe in abortion in general, but don't think there's much hope to stop it. Too many, where it's illegal, go to where it's legal.
I believe in prevention -- that educating kids about the full consequences of bringing a child into the world when the parents are on drugs, in jail, etc. is fully in order, and I think every woman should be ordered, by law, to remain on birth control until they are a bare minimum of 25 years old.
& if you liberals out there don't like that, as game says, go see the results of not doing this in reality. Go see it with your own two eyes.
'nuff said.
BTW: I have many times told the ACLU and people in the ACLU where to stick it -- and I'd do it time & time again. I feel like calling them now and telling them to hang this one where the sun don't shine. I believe a group like that who is there sheerly for "political correctness" has no place in the U.S.
One more mention, sorry, on this -- there is a law now in the state of NM that the mother and baby both be tested for drugs when the baby's born, and if drugs of any kind are found, the baby is automatically taken away from the mother.
The only decent thing NM ever did.
way to be on the ball here dedanna...
I love the MN law...
I spend 6 weeks in my health class talking not only about body parts and STD's (STI's), but also dating and teen parenting...I just don't think it sinks in...
Sex is an overpowering urge game. I wish we could prevent all unwanted pregnancys because many times the results make so many problems in this country. Which is why I applaud your school district for at least making young people aware and why I support allowing birth control. I would MUCH rather have birth control than abortion. Many on the far right are against both which is just nonsenseical to me.
I don't go that far...NO birth control is silly..the morning after pill is close, but I'm okay with that too...anything in the first trimester is okay
We could comprimise and agree on that.
game said...
I spend 6 weeks in my health class talking not only about body parts and STD's (STI's), but also dating and teen parenting...I just don't think it sinks in...
It's because sex ed in schools goes nowhere near far enough in depth on consequences. Such as the subject going on in this thread. It says "use birth control or abstinence, y'might get preggers or get an STD" but it doesn't say a whole lot else. So, the kids tune out because there's nothing that relates directly to their lives, and nothing really interesting there.
Kids these days could care less if they get the local whore pregnant a hundred times over. They could care less if they get an STD -- they consider themselves too invincible or they figure all they need is a shot of penicillin, and that will cure all their ills.
They need to know that nothing will, fully why, and that once they've taken the road, there's absolutely no going back, and what all the consequences are.
Either that, or beat 'em into submission on abstinence. Take your pick.
Dedanna, Responsiblilty is ultimately up to the parents to teach. If they could care less if they bring another life into the world that they are not prepared to care for and love the parents totally missed the boat.
However I do agree with you that schools loose the kids interest quickly by not making things relatable. This is not just in sex ed but overall.
The point already made here though, is the parents who do not care for or love their kids shouldn't have kids at all.
I think it's virtually impossible these days for parents alone to teach their kids about this stuff -- too many babies out there having babies, who teach their babies to play in the streets to sell their drugs, do their stealing, et. al, rather than teaching them to play out of the streets.
How are parents like that going to teach their kids a damned thing, much less right and wrong? Much as we'd like them to, it's not reality.
Someone has to. So who's it going to be, Ron? Their second parents (that being their teachers), or no one?
I agree with you, but it's not happening that the parents do it, and won't.
And I think those parents need to go away. Period. Not be allowed to have kids in the first place. Take the kids away.
This is where social services (i.e. children, youth, & families, whatever the state agencies are) falls far, far short. Kids are being taken away from their parents for being properly disciplined, not the ones who treat their kids like shit.
Again, someone has to teach the kids the right thing.
This is one area that I swing WAY right on. I think that we should be allowed to spank the kids if they need it, we should be allowed to ground them, etc., but only to the parents who are honestly being parents.
Dedanna, you are right but pressure needs to be put on parents of any age to be responsible. I also agree with you that kids need a spankin once in a while. Not a beating..not bruised but I was spanked many times and look how good I turned out! :-) It certainly didn't cause me to be prone to violence as many claim!
Contraception, that being, preventing conception, is truly the only acceptable strategy. Birth control does not prevent all conception. That is why we wacky folk on the religious right oppose it. We know, that is KNOW, that once that egg is fertilized a new human being is trying to reach retirement age. Thus, we KNOW that abstinence is the only effective method of preventing pregnancy. It is said that abstinence programs don't work. It's not the program, it's the application of the knowledge imparted. Or rather, that the lessons aren't practiced. But as it turns out, abstinence is 100% effective every time it's practiced.
But what of those who engage in intercourse? What of those on drugs who have babies? How terrible to bring them into the world in such a state!!! Well, abortion ain't the answer since, as explained above, they are already in the world. The question is whether one has the right to take them out of it.
So I favor the same drastic measures mentioned above as far as taking the kids away. Forced sterilization isn't repugnant to me considering the alternatives.
But a major factor in the causation side of the equation is the supression of religion in the public debate. There has been nothing comparable that has taken it's place. Moral relativism has eliminated any sense of shame that used to be attached to indulging one's urges. This same moral ambiguity led to the idea that a fertilized egg isn't a human being endowed by it's Creator with the right to life. Science does not replace religion's influence on morality and ethics and it hasn't changed the stated notion of when a human life begins.
The ACLU has no moral compass. It is in fact, and has always been, devoid of moral consideration. It forsakes such things in favor of law, or it's wacky interpretation of law. They are no longer the best defense in civil liberty cases because they can't see beyond the law to get to the intent behind the law. They stretch the Constitution to include things the founders never intended, nor never would have intended considering their backgrounds and beliefs.
What people do to children in this day and age and in this country is far beyond anything words like "heinous" would ever cover. I favor erring on the side of children, no matter how far along their physical development.
Marshall, there is some I agree with you on here. Specifically that I think we should be talking more about morality. I can assure you that my morality finds much of yours wrong and some even reprehensible and no doubt vis versa. None the less I am happy to engage. Just know you will not easily push the "shame game" on me .
No doubt. No one wants to bear it. I know I don't. Yet, shame is integral to the notion of taking responsibility, and for how one conducts one's life. Shame and guilt can be unnecessarily debilatating, but the absolute lack of it, or disregard for any feelings of shame or guilt, is disregard for the victim and most likely will result in half-hearted or insincere restitution, if restitution is even offered.
On a more personal level, I would suspect that as a moral person (whatever that means to you), you feel shame and guilt when you act in a manner contrary to your own code. At least I would hope so. It "keeps you honest". Thus, you would most certainly expect another to feel such at their poor behavior. Without it, the poor behavior would be routine, and for some it is BECAUSE they feel no shame or guilt. I'm sure you find certain policies of Bush shameful and would hope he feels it.
But the bigger problem in our society is the prevailing attitude of "who are you to tell me how to live?" That's a question posed in order to deflect shame or guilt. Many take the position that if a behavior isn't spelled out as being illegal, then it's perfectly acceptable if one should decide to indulge. The number of abortions every year should indicate the folly of that notion. Rampant obesity, horrid manners, are other examples. In one of his epistles, Paul said, "All things are possible, but not all things are practical." (or words to that effect) To not feel shame is to have no conscience, to ignore shame is to ignore one's conscience. The moral relativism that has brought about the idea that each has his "own truth" has just as incorrectly led to the dismissal of shame and guilt and the inconsideration of others.
I ask you: should Mel Gibson feel shame? should Paris Hilton? should John Wayne Gacy? should pregnant women doing drugs? Shame has a place. To avoid it, don't do shameful things. We can debate what those things might be as they come up.
BTW, feel free to question my morality as you feel necessary, and I'll try to clarify my position.
MSo Marshall apparently believes only in sex for conception?
Marshall I KNOW you are wrong about when life begins.I KNOW when natural life outside the womb is viable so don't give me your puritan blah blah blah.
Who Marshall is going to pay the enormous hospital and care bills for those children "in such a state"! You surely don't want the taxpayer(government) to do it do you!? Sorry but I think it is far more moral to end it early than add an unwanted burden on the world. Yes they could grow up and find a cure for cancer but it is at least as likely that they will hate their life and may be damaged enough to turn to crime themselves.
The ACLU is not a religious organization. Their purpose is civil rights. And not civil rights as determined by puritans but by our Constitution. Yes, I agree they often go overboard but to say they have no "moral compass" is only right unless you consider freedom and liberty unrelated to morality.
You can ask game or jason. I certainly feel shame and guilt. I have attempted to apologize and admit to as much a few times on this very blog..know what happened? I was told I was a perfect example of liberal self guilt or some such thing.
Marshall: The moral relativism that has brought about the idea that each has his "own truth" has just as incorrectly led to the dismissal of shame and guilt and the inconsideration of others.
Maybe a nitpic here but again words are important. It is not that each has his own truth but that each has his own understanding of truth, in the realm of shame and guilt.As above what we KNOW is true and different for both of us. Wheather sex is a thing to feel shame or guilt over is apparently a different "truth" for each of us too. Who knows the one all encompassing for all circumstances "truth". Is is you? If you think so you may want to study another spiritual precept called "humility".
What I mean when I say you will have a hard time playing the shame game on me is that precisely(sorry I am a horrible speller) what you noted in your post.
"On a more personal level, I would suspect that as a moral person (whatever that means to you), you feel shame and guilt when you act in a manner contrary to your own code. At least I would hope so. It "keeps you honest". "
I make mistakes and my moral code says admit it and ask for forgiveness as soon as I realize it.
I also realize that I could be wrong so I try not to inflict my moral code on others. If I am wrong that would certainly be bad Karma. This is what I expect from others. To seek one that makes sense and try to live by it. Not to tell me what it is. I have a personal relationship with my higher power(God, whatever you choose) and I would hope that others would too. It is between them and God.
Dedanna, you are going to make game and jasons heads spin all the way around! :-) Liberals that dis agree..you are ruining their cartoons!
Sorry, I don't give a damn where I am, I'm going to state what I honestly believe.
Whomever this pisses off or not is up to the people getting pissed off or not.
Post a Comment