- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Couldn't you have added fluoridation as well. Just think how much more confusing it would be. :2razz:This will be an open poll. That way we can just discard all anonymous votes.
One question, two subjects.
1: Are you against/not against TSA body scanners?
2: Are you against/not against abortion?
Why?
There will be no "other" option as quite frankly I don't care about "other" options. This thread is not about "other" options.
I get the premise, though I think it's a bit of a stretch.
It would be cheaper, safer, and more efficient if we just gave every passenger their own box cutter and faced the reality that we're going to lose a plane every once in a while. It's still safer than driving.
This will be an open poll. That way we can just discard all anonymous votes.
One question, two subjects.
1: Are you against/not against TSA body scanners?
2: Are you against/not against abortion?
Why?
There will be no "other" option as quite frankly I don't care about "other" options. This thread is not about "other" options.
Not sure what they have to do with each but I will answer. I am against TSA scanners and I am against abortion except in the case where multiple pro-life doctors have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at 40% viability will result in the death of the mother.
As for why. The TSA scanners are virtual strip searches and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment. I am against abortion because I believe that a baby in the womb deserves the same legal protection and right to life as anyone outside the womb.
This post brings to light what the premise is of this thread. And I will admit, as CC said, it is a bit of a stretch.
In Roe vs Wade anti-abortion laws were considered to be unconstitutional for privacy reasons. IE it violated the 4th amendment. Which is actually understandable when you consider that a persons medical records, be they physical or mental are considered to be damn near sancrosanct even to the point of doctors being barred from telling police about illegals that come into thier hospitals. The only way for police to access medical records is via a warrant. As far as I know not even the Patriot Act violated that part of our laws.
Now I'm sure that people will say that this right shouldn't apply because we're talking about an innocent life here. But honestly why shouldn't it? The very fundamental principle of the US is individual freedoms. That everyone, regardless of belief system, has an inalienable right, and that the majority should not be able to take that right away, unless there are lives at steak. Which of course for those that are anti-abortion is the very fundemental reason to be anti-abortion.
But then here comes the TSA and body scanners. They wish to put these body scanners into place in order to attempt to save innocent life. When all is said and done the TSA's goal is very similiar to that of an anti-abortionist. Only real difference is that of age. Yet here the innocent life on a plane is apparently less than that of a baby in the womb (ironically there are unborn babies in wombs aplenty on a plane also). Because here people holler about 4th amendment violations. Now people will no doubt try to draw comparisons between the amount of innocent life taken vs innocent life taken between the two. Problem here is that in order to be consistant every life should be valued just as equally as the next, irregardless of circumstances or amounts.
So when all is boiled down and consistant, you have two very different situations. Both of them are about a right to privacy. Yet as Jamesrage has evidenced here, there are contradictions between the two
Note to Jamesrage: Sorry james, but you did fall neatly into the trap I placed.
This post brings to light what the premise is of this thread. And I will admit, as CC said, it is a bit of a stretch.
In Roe vs Wade anti-abortion laws were considered to be unconstitutional for privacy reasons. IE it violated the 4th amendment. Which is actually understandable when you consider that a persons medical records, be they physical or mental are considered to be damn near sancrosanct even to the point of doctors being barred from telling police about illegals that come into thier hospitals. The only way for police to access medical records is via a warrant. As far as I know not even the Patriot Act violated that part of our laws.
Now I'm sure that people will say that this right shouldn't apply because we're talking about an innocent life here. But honestly why shouldn't it? The very fundamental principle of the US is individual freedoms. That everyone, regardless of belief system, has an inalienable right, and that the majority should not be able to take that right away, unless there are lives at steak. Which of course for those that are anti-abortion is the very fundemental reason to be anti-abortion.
But then here comes the TSA and body scanners. They wish to put these body scanners into place in order to attempt to save innocent life. When all is said and done the TSA's goal is very similiar to that of an anti-abortionist. Only real difference is that of age. Yet here the innocent life on a plane is apparently less than that of a baby in the womb (ironically there are unborn babies in wombs aplenty on a plane also). Because here people holler about 4th amendment violations. Now people will no doubt try to draw comparisons between the amount of innocent life taken vs innocent life taken between the two. Problem here is that in order to be consistant every life should be valued just as equally as the next, irregardless of circumstances or amounts.
So when all is boiled down and consistant, you have two very different situations. Both of them are about a right to privacy. Yet as Jamesrage has evidenced here, there are contradictions between the two.
Note to Jamesrage: Sorry james, but you did fall neatly into the trap I placed.
There is no constitutional right to abortion.Banning abortion does not require you peek in medical records, so the SC messed up royally in their ruling. So it is totally absurd to even compare a non-right like abortion to something that is a violation of the constitution like full body scanners at airports.
But prosecuting for having an abortion would require looking at medical records.
No it wouldn't. Just like cops do John Stings, fake drug deals and Bait cars they can catch those attempting to perform an abortion or those seeking an abortion,these stings could lead to getting a search warrant to look at records to lead to not only a conviction for an attempted abortion but also for abortions performed assuming the abortion provider is stupid enough to have a record. These things do not violate the 4th amendment. Some concerned private citizen could provide a video tape to the police or statements that someone is performing abortion. If a woman who was pregnant is suddenly no longer pregnant then there would be probably cause to suspect that she did something to cause her pregnancy to be terminated. These things do not require peeking into medical records. Banning abortion does not in any shape or form violate the 4th amendment, nor is there a constitutional right to abortion. Again the SC blatantly screwed up.
No it wouldn't. Just like cops do John Stings, fake drug deals and Bait cars they can catch those attempting to perform an abortion or those seeking an abortion,these stings could lead to getting a search warrant to look at records to lead to not only a conviction for an attempted abortion but also for abortions performed assuming the abortion provider is stupid enough to have a record. These things do not violate the 4th amendment. Some concerned private citizen could provide a video tape to the police or statements that someone is performing abortion. If a woman who was pregnant is suddenly no longer pregnant then there would be probably cause to suspect that she did something to cause her pregnancy to be terminated. These things do not require peeking into medical records. Banning abortion does not in any shape or form violate the 4th amendment, nor is there a constitutional right to abortion. Again the SC blatantly screwed up.
Yup. That's what I thought. Figured you were going with a body sovereignty/privacy comparison.
Congratulations. VERY original argument. I don't see too many that make me say that.
Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHow would a sting operation be set up without leading to entrapment?
Getting an abortion for provider attempt is better than nothing.And as you say someone performing abortions would have to be stupid by keeping documents of such procedures around so at most you could only get a doctor for that one attempt.
Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAgain, assuming you have a way to do the sting without leading to getting the case and all evidence obtained thrown out due to entrapment laws.
As for getting the women that get the procedure done...well that would be next to impossible.
While I would imagine that could be determined via an examination you would have to get a warrant in order to get that examination done, even then I would imagine that there would be a time stamp in how long such an examination could be done in order to detect anything. Problem here is that you would have to have compelling evidence that something illegal was done.
Such evidence would be hard...if not impossible to get as the woman could very well have just had a miscarriage. Assumptions would not procure a warrant so the only way to get a warrant is if a sting operation was completed successfully and the abortion doctor kept records and done in such a way as to not get in trouble with entrapment laws.
Citizens report crimes all the time and police check them out, why would an abortions be any different if they became illegal?Your concerned citizen would not be enough as there still has to be physical evidence that something illegal was being done. While the video would be enough...
I am sure that the same thing was said about other criminals. However people are caught on camera committing crimes.what doctor (even the stupid ones that kept records) would allow such a video to take place while performing the abortion...much less allowing anyone other than the woman wanting the abortion inside the room while the operation was taking place. Assuming that the woman would bring someone along with her in the first place that she didn't completely and utterly trust.
No you wouldn't. Anti-abortion laws can be upheld with sting operations and citizens reporting criminal activities much the same way police do not have to kick down your door to see if you have a meth lab or growing pot. Your it violates the 4th amendment doesn't hold water.In essence, at some point in the procedure, you would have to violate the 4th amendment in order to get evidence that something illegal was being done.
This will be an open poll. That way we can just discard all anonymous votes.
One question, two subjects.
1: Are you against/not against TSA body scanners?
2: Are you against/not against abortion?
There will be no "other" option as quite frankly I don't care about "other" options. This thread is not about "other" options.
This post brings to light what the premise is of this thread. And I will admit, as CC said, it is a bit of a stretch.
In Roe vs Wade anti-abortion laws were considered to be unconstitutional for privacy reasons. IE it violated the 4th amendment. Which is actually understandable when you consider that a persons medical records, be they physical or mental are considered to be damn near sancrosanct even to the point of doctors being barred from telling police about illegals that come into thier hospitals. The only way for police to access medical records is via a warrant. As far as I know not even the Patriot Act violated that part of our laws.
Now I'm sure that people will say that this right shouldn't apply because we're talking about an innocent life here. But honestly why shouldn't it? The very fundamental principle of the US is individual freedoms. That everyone, regardless of belief system, has an inalienable right, and that the majority should not be able to take that right away, unless there are lives at steak. Which of course for those that are anti-abortion is the very fundemental reason to be anti-abortion.
But then here comes the TSA and body scanners. They wish to put these body scanners into place in order to attempt to save innocent life. When all is said and done the TSA's goal is very similiar to that of an anti-abortionist. Only real difference is that of age. Yet here the innocent life on a plane is apparently less than that of a baby in the womb (ironically there are unborn babies in wombs aplenty on a plane also). Because here people holler about 4th amendment violations. Now people will no doubt try to draw comparisons between the amount of innocent life taken vs innocent life taken between the two. Problem here is that in order to be consistant every life should be valued just as equally as the next, irregardless of circumstances or amounts.
So when all is boiled down and consistant, you have two very different situations. Both of them are about a right to privacy. Yet as Jamesrage has evidenced here, there are contradictions between the two.
Note to Jamesrage: Sorry james, but you did fall neatly into the trap I placed.
I don't have an issue with either one, but it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I voted wrong.
Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation).
No more impossible that catching people trying to sell or buy drugs or someone trying to solicit the services of a prostitute or something else illegal.
If a perfectly healthy pregnant woman was suddenly not pregnant and someone reported that she had an abortion it would be good enough to have reasonable cause that she did something illegal.
Citizens report crimes all the time and police check them out, why would an abortions be any different if they became illegal?
I am sure that the same thing was said about other criminals. However people are caught on camera committing crimes.
No you wouldn't. Anti-abortion laws can be upheld with sting operations and citizens reporting criminal activities much the same way police do not have to kick down your door to see if you have a meth lab or growing pot. Your it violates the 4th amendment doesn't hold water.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?