You don't think anybody is arguing for the right to abortion (which I assume is what was meant by infanticide; admittedly nobody is in favor of infanticide they just disagree on the when the infanti- part applies)?

I'm fine with almost everything mentioned that doesn't directly harm another person (and no, I don't consider an unborn child a person, I just barely consider and actually born one a person) being legal. I have discussed before the great difficulty that animal cruelty laws cause me, that I can create an argument that doesn't entirely contradict my principles, but I pretty openly admit that it is a case of me mostly twisting to get a result that I like.

My only point was that there are, many, many laws about what one can do with and to onesself, not discussing the merits or lack thereof.

Why?

Um, that wasn't an actual suggestion. That was snark.

* * * *


and scaeagles, just to be clear, you wrote "rights", not "laws." There's a big, fat difference, and I've gone on quite a bit about what that difference is.

We all type imperfectly at times. But if your point was there are laws on the books about what we can do with our own bodies, I'm afraid I don't see the point of your point.

Can you be arrested for violating a right? I'm not talking rhetorically about yelling fire or some such thing. If I have the right to do to my body whatever I choose, than how can I have violated a law? If exercising a right means violating a law, then surely those laws are unconstitutional....and yet have never been so deemed (referring to prostitution, drug usage, whatever).

Seems contradictory, but I am indeed no legal scholar.

Of course you can be arrested for violating a right. That's among the reasons for the American Revolution in the first place. Many things we consider rights were arrestible offenses under the British.

So does the U.S.A. have it completely correct and the quest for freedom to enjoy human rights without fear or punishment is over? I think not.


We don't even have the extent of rights promised to us by the American Revolution. Much less the next step beyond ... which, some 232 years later, I'd say is quite overdue.

I agree, we don't have it right yet. What is then, the cause or delay in ruling on the constitutional issues of the violating laws?

I suppose I must look at it the same way you do.....I disagree with much of what the courts rule on as well.

Palin uses Yahoo email to conduct official business. And her Yahoo account was hacked.

For the record -

I think she was profoundly stupid to use a fairly unsecured email client such as Yahoo (or gmail or anything other than an official government email) to conduct government business on. I also think it was completely fvcked up to hack into her email account.

This was reported before. Palin and her top people used private email accounts on advise of counsel (or somone advisor anyway) on the theory it wouldn't be under the same requirements (sunshine laws, retention, subpoenability) as emails through the official government channels. Of course, this is security hole is a much bigger issue once this is known to the general world.

I'm curious, though, why they revealed her husbands email address in the article. There is no reason he wouldn't be using a private email address since he has no official government business to do.

The news is that her private email account was hacked, not that she has private email or that she uses it to conduct business so that the email cannot be subpoenaed.

I don't know about her husband, other than that apparently he attended a lot of her work meetings and people have mentioned that the Alaskan residents apparently voted for a co-governorship.