-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter sandgk
- Start date
OH10
*
Not on a court-appointed basis. Too much work for too little money. But if they wanted to pony up a sizeable retainer, I'd be willing to make the following argument:
"All particpants were willing." I would argue that under Lawrence v. Texas, this is something they have the right to do in the privacy of their own home. If people can consent to sodomy, why can't they consent to this?
"All particpants were willing." I would argue that under Lawrence v. Texas, this is something they have the right to do in the privacy of their own home. If people can consent to sodomy, why can't they consent to this?
Upvote
0
Does anybody shudder when they see a charge of "castration without malice"? And what was the debate over that law like? "Well, what if people want to get their balls ripped off with a belt sander, who are we to say it's wrong?"
Upvote
0
Even if I didn't couldn't my client provide me with some?
I agree in principle, but doesn't a line have to be drawn somewhere along the continum between ear piercing and assistend suicide (talking of a healthy person here - not the terminally ill)?
Upvote
0
OH10
*
From a lawyer's perspective, the substantive debate wouldn't be allowed to matter to me. I'd have to make the best argument on behalf of the client, regardless of whether I believed in it. The argument would go something like this... The fact is that we're talking about a healthy person making their own choice, which will not affect someone else. The Court has set precedent that protects these actions. If the Court were to draw the line here, what precedent does that set? What is the objective criteria that this Court is going to set to determine what consenting adults can and cannot do in the privacy of their own home? Please tell me that the Potter Stewart theory of "I'll know it when I see it" isn't experiencing a rebirth in constitutional jurisprudence.
From a citizen's perspective, it's a tough call. I usually lean strongly against government intrusion into free will, so long as there are not adverse consequence on innocent people. I'd have to think about it before coming to a definitive opinion.
Upvote
0
gregorylee
I'd rather be napping!!
"Hey Juan, look man, these gringos are going to give us free tickets to Am'rica jus for us lettin them smash our ballzac!"
Upvote
0
BuckBackHome
Wolverine is largest member of weasel family
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!
That or the Chewbacca defense.
That or the Chewbacca defense.
Upvote
0
JohnnyCockfight
Beer is God's proof that he loves us.
Many states make a distinction between midwifery and the practice of medicine, and if North Carolina is one of those states, I would argue that you cannot pick and choose which aspects of medicine may be regulated. Alternatively, I believe some non-licensed physicians may perform certain procedures under the guise of religion. Perhaps that argument could be made as well.
North Carolina is a tough state for this kind of case though. I remember reading a case where a physician had his license taken away for practicing homeopathic medicine, which was considered "alternative" medicine. The interesting part of the case was that the physician got just as good, if not better, results as the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice in the state, and the trial and appellate level courts both sided with the physician, but the N.C. high court overturned the decisions below.
In any event, those castration people are fucking freaks.
North Carolina is a tough state for this kind of case though. I remember reading a case where a physician had his license taken away for practicing homeopathic medicine, which was considered "alternative" medicine. The interesting part of the case was that the physician got just as good, if not better, results as the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice in the state, and the trial and appellate level courts both sided with the physician, but the N.C. high court overturned the decisions below.
In any event, those castration people are fucking freaks.
Upvote
0
The removal of someone else's body parts requires a medical license, which these sick fucks didn't have.
Upvote
0
Folanator
Brawndo's got electrolytes...
This reminds me about the guy that video taped himself eating a person that had willing entered into a contract to have himself killed and eaten for cash. Happened in Europe somewhere.
As far as the nuts go they would make a nice Hacky sack. I would feel a little icky about picking it up though...
As far as the nuts go they would make a nice Hacky sack. I would feel a little icky about picking it up though...
Upvote
0