Clinics ask how O'Reilly got abortion records

CoffeeSaint · Nov 21, 2006

Stinger said:
You wanna bet it's not a law, and if not should it be? What about laws concerning abortion where parents aren't even notified as a courtesy? Do you support those?

Yeah, I do. I voted against the proposition that would have forced doctors to give 48 hours notice to the parents before performing an abortion on a girl 16 years of age or younger. I believe that a 15-year-old girl should be able to get an abortion without parental notification.

I honestly don't know if the 16-18 blood donation rule is a law. I also don't care. It also has nothing to do with abortion.

Stinger · Nov 21, 2006

Purple said:
I am pro choice and I don't think the government should have any control over our bodies. Having said that I want to thank you for taking my quote out of a different thread and applying it here,

Properly so. The poster claimed that no one on your side has said exactly what you said. I showed him differently by citing your post.

and I will also point out that I did NOT say that that it should be legal to SELL a fetus.

OK who said you did then?

If I want to cut off a finger than it's my choice it should not up to the government

If you began to cut off your fingers for no reason the government could in fact step in and if a doctor was doing it to people who wanted it done surgically for no medical reason the government most certainly would step in.

But the question is do you have a right to sell you body parts since you are asserting you have absolute control over you body to do with as you please.

and if a 15 year old girl wants to abort a fetus or cut off her finger it is her choice.

So you believe 15 year old girls have a right to do so without parental permission?

You bleeding heart pro little pink babies people amaze me with your twisted morals.

What morals do you believe I have that you don't share?

You believe you have the right to bear arms so you think it gives you the right to kill someone

The right to bear arms does not give me an inherient right to kill someone. And I can only use that arm to defend myself against deadly force or grave harm with deadly force. You don't think you have that right?

but then you go around screaming about the rights of the little pink babies. Hypocrite.

How so?

It's easy,..my body=my decision and until a baby is born it isn't a person and it doesn't have rights.

Ok you are making two arguements. Let's stick with the first since that is the one we have been discussing. You are stating the right to control your body naturally includes the right to sell parts of it?

Stinger · Nov 21, 2006

CoffeeSaint said:
Yeah, I do. I voted against the proposition that would have forced doctors to give 48 hours notice to the parents before performing an abortion on a girl 16 years of age or younger. I believe that a 15-year-old girl should be able to get an abortion without parental notification.

And what if it was an adult who got her pregnent and then took her to kill the baby, the parents have no parental rights to know someone is doing that to their child?

How about a 14 year old and a 30 year old man, he can just take her and drop her off at an abortion clinic, wait for her outside, then take her home and be done with it? Parents have no role and no rights?

I honestly don't know if the 16-18 blood donation rule is a law. I also don't care. It also has nothing to do with abortion.

It all comes from the amazing position you have regarding children.

jallman · Nov 21, 2006

Stinger said:
Baloney and that has nothing to do with a right to do with your body as you see fit, if you had that right then your exception wouldn't apply.

This statement alone is proof that you are either being obtuse or completely out of your element discussing the application of rights.

The assertion is that you have a fundimental absolute right to do with your body as you see fit therefore government can't regulate abortion. Since you don't have that right...................

The assertion IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN that your rights end where another's begin. That applies to all rights: dominion over your body included. You have a fundamental right to live where you wish, unless someone else is already living there. Your arguments are so poorly conceived that it is difficult to argue just because of the disjointed "logic".

You're grasping at straws now.

Says you.

We regulate guns where you also have a right involved.................specious.

Perhaps before we continue this discussion it would behoove you to understand tha application of the word "specious".

We regulate the doctors who preform abortions and thier clinics........................specious.

Again, you aren't making any sense whatsoever. Perhaps you are grasping for a different word with a more appropriate context?

Again we are talking the one premise here.......................do you have an abosulte right to control your body without any government interference.

Now you are adding to the assertion on your own. You are taking the original assertion completely out of context and hyperbolizing and exaggerating it to a point of absurdity.....obtuse.

Nope. If you want to defend abortion with another arguement that is another discussion, but saying a woman has a right to an abortion because the government has not right to tell us what we can or can't do with our bodies is a bogus arguement, it does it all the time.

And again, only when exercising that control can involve another and his/her rights. You have yet to illustrate anything bogus about the argument.

CoffeeSaint · Nov 21, 2006

Stinger said:
And what if it was an adult who got her pregnent and then took her to kill the baby, the parents have no parental rights to know someone is doing that to their child?

How about a 14 year old and a 30 year old man, he can just take her and drop her off at an abortion clinic, wait for her outside, then take her home and be done with it? Parents have no role and no rights?

He is already breaking the law by having sex with her. He should already be in jail, and so there is no need to make him twice as criminal by preventing her abortion. (Not to be picky, but 14-year-olds do need parental permission in Oregon. 15-year-olds don't.)
Now: what if her father is a Fundamentalist Christian and will literally beat her to death if he finds out she is pregnant and seeking an abortion? Does he have the right to kill her? Should he know that she is having an abortion? Or should we perhaps allow a young woman to make decisions concerning her own life?

Stinger said:
It all comes from the amazing position you have regarding children.

Why, thank you! I think I'm amazing, too.

1069 · Nov 21, 2006

Why, thank you! I think I'm amazing, too.

Wow. That makes three of us!
1069, Stinger, and CoffeeSaint: The CoffeeSaint Fan Club.
It's so nice when people with vastly different ideological perspectives like Stinger and me can at least find something to agree on. :smile:

CoffeeSaint · Nov 21, 2006

Stinger said:
Properly so. The poster claimed that no one on your side has said exactly what you said. I showed him differently by citing your post.

OK who said you did then?

If you began to cut off your fingers for no reason the government could in fact step in and if a doctor was doing it to people who wanted it done surgically for no medical reason the government most certainly would step in.

But the question is do you have a right to sell you body parts since you are asserting you have absolute control over you body to do with as you please.

So you believe 15 year old girls have a right to do so without parental permission?

What morals do you believe I have that you don't share?

The right to bear arms does not give me an inherient right to kill someone. And I can only use that arm to defend myself against deadly force or grave harm with deadly force. You don't think you have that right?

How so?

Ok you are making two arguements. Let's stick with the first since that is the one we have been discussing. You are stating the right to control your body naturally includes the right to sell parts of it?

Not to get involved with this argument, since it isn't mine, but Purple said nothing about selling body parts. S/he said that the girl has the right to cut the finger off, not sell it.

Because the right to control is not defined by the right to sell. See how that works?

Stinger · Nov 22, 2006

jallman said:
This statement alone is proof that you are either being obtuse or completely out of your element discussing the application of rights.

Not as much as your attempts to dismiss out of hand show you can argue the point.

The assertion IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN that your rights end where another's begin.

No, you are making it up. The assertion has been that a woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit and the government can't interfer therefore it can't regualte abort. Point has be shown to be false.

That applies to all rights: dominion over your body included. You have a fundamental right to live where you wish,

Actually I don't. I can only live on property I purchase or rent or otherwise have the permission of the owner. I can live on federal land for instance.

unless someone else is already living there.

Actually if I own the land and I find someone else living there I can have them removed so I can live there.

Your arguments are so poorly conceived that it is difficult to argue just because of the disjointed "logic".

Sorry but it is YOUR side that brings the disjoined logic in order to try to get around the fundimental flaws in your arguements.

Perhaps before we continue this discussion it would behoove you to understand tha application of the word "specious".

The responses I am receiving are full of them, you might want to study them.

Now you are adding to the assertion on your own. You are taking the original assertion completely out of context and hyperbolizing and exaggerating it to a point of absurdity.....obtuse.

Nope the assertion was that abortion can't be regulated of controlled by government because a woman has a right to control her own body, have yet to have anyone explain why only women are cite to have this right. That has been shown to be false. Government can and does regulate what we can or can't do with our bodies.

And again, only when exercising that control can involve another and his/her rights. You have yet to illustrate anything bogus about the argument.

The government had the right to and did prohibit women from inserting silicone breast implants didn't it?

The fact remains you cannpt sell your body parts because you do not have a right to do with your body as you see fit, the government DOES control and regulate such things.

If you want to argue the pro-abortion side based on other premises then have at it, but saying that government has no business being involved in abortion because of this asserted right is nonsense.

Stinger · Nov 22, 2006

CoffeeSaint said:
Not to get involved with this argument, since it isn't mine, but Purple said nothing about selling body parts. S/he said that the girl has the right to cut the finger off, not sell it.

Because the right to control is not defined by the right to sell. See how that works?

Read my response to the assertion. And while you are at it what do you think should be done to the parents of a 15 year old girl who is cutting off her fingers and they do nothing about it but sit there and watch? How about a 12 year old? Do you think government should intercede?

Stinger · Nov 22, 2006

CoffeeSaint said:
He is already breaking the law by having sex with her. He should already be in jail,

He has to be caught first doesn't he which goes back to the OP here. You guys want him to get away with it so the abortion process is not hampered.

and so there is no need to make him twice as criminal by preventing her abortion.

I'm talking about the parents, you would allow him to get away with it, taking her to get an abortion which might effect her for the rest of her life, after already being raped, statitorially, and your happey with the parents no ever knowing, even supporting the proposition.

(Not to be picky, but 14-year-olds do need parental permission in Oregon. 15-year-olds don't.)
Now: what if her father is a Fundamentalist Christian and will literally beat her to death if he finds out she is pregnant and seeking an abortion?

He would be in jail wouldn't, and I bet you would want him in jail, and if the girl went to a doctor to get treated for the beating I bet you would want the doctor to report it wouldn't you? But abortion........................

Does he have the right to kill her?

If course not, does the 14 year old have a right to kill her child?

Should he know that she is having an abortion? Or should we perhaps allow a young woman to make decisions concerning her own life?

If we allow her to make the decission about abortion then surely we should allow her to make the decission about having sex in the first place so why don't we make sex with minors legal if they want to engage in it?

Again, perhaps you should take YOUR premises to their logical conclusions.

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

Stinger said:
Not as much as your attempts to dismiss out of hand show you can argue the point.

Well neener neener neener to you to. :roll:

No, you are making it up.

No, you are being totally obtuse in this discussion.

The assertion has been that a woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit and the government can't interfer therefore it can't regualte abort.

Where abortion is concerned, certainly. But it has always been an understood reality that rights end where someone else's begin. I mean, we are talking about the same constitution here, correct?

Point has be shown to be false.

No, you are making that up.

Actually I don't. I can only live on property I purchase or rent or otherwise have the permission of the owner. I can live on federal land for instance.

Exactly. You can live wherever you wish so long as you are not infringing on another's rights. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Actually if I own the land and I find someone else living there I can have them removed so I can live there.

Exactly, because then they are infringing on your right to property and privacy. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Sorry but it is YOUR side that brings the disjoined logic in order to try to get around the fundimental flaws in your arguements.

You are making this up.

The responses I am receiving are full of them, you might want to study them.

I suppose in your fairy land that might be true.

Nope the assertion was that abortion can't be regulated of controlled by government because a woman has a right to control her own body, have yet to have anyone explain why only women are cite to have this right. That has been shown to be false. Government can and does regulate what we can or can't do with our bodies.

Only where the exercising of that right infringes upon or contacts the rights of another.

The government had the right to and did prohibit women from inserting silicone breast implants didn't it?

And now they no longer do because it was an infringement of their rights. This is a specious argument. File it a way for reference.

The fact remains you cannpt sell your body parts because you do not have a right to do with your body as you see fit, the government DOES control and regulate such things.

You cannot sell your body parts because it is illegal to sell body parts period. It has to do with bioethics among other things. The government controls and regulates this act because it involves the rights and safety of many, not just the one.

If you want to argue the pro-abortion side based on other premises then have at it, but saying that government has no business being involved in abortion because of this asserted right is nonsense.

I don't have to argue it on any other premise yet because you have yet to undermine this point at all. When/if you do, then we can move on to another point.

Stinger · Nov 22, 2006

jallman said:
No, you are being totally obtuse in this discussion.

obtuse: I can't refute so I will dismiss

Where abortion is concerned, certainly.

Sorry fundimental rights are not so narrowly tailored. What you are saying is a woman has a right to abortion because she has a right to abortion, that is called a flat statement, not an arguement.

But it has always been an understood reality that rights end where someone else's begin.

So rights can be sophmoricaly discussed on that premise but not all rights have anything to do wtih anyone else's. So what does that has what to do with this? The government still prevents you from selling your body parts, you do not have absolute control over you body and what you do with it as is asserted by the pro-abortion side. My selling by body parts infringes on no one else's right to do anything.

Me>> Sorry but it is YOUR side that brings the disjoined logic in order to try to get around the fundimental flaws in your arguements.

No, you are making that up.

Just review the post, a fundimental right is declared when shown to be a falacious statement the "buts" start coming in.

Exactly. You can live wherever you wish so long as you are not infringing on another's rights. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Has nothing to do with anyone elses rights, but again you try to divert. I own my house, I can't build on the front 30 feet of it. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Exactly, because then they are infringing on your right to property and privacy. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Look you are the one who said I have a right to live anywhere I want to, you are disproving your own arguement.

You are making this up.

And now they no longer do because it was an infringement of their rights. This is a specious argument. File it a way for reference.

Breast implants that is, OK cite where that was the reason the court ruled as it did? Don't bother you can't because that had nothing to do with the issue. It was a health issue and the government said no because studies showed health problems, so they made it illegal for a woman to do something with her body that she wanted to do.

You cannot sell your body parts because it is illegal to sell body parts period.

Because you don't have a fundimental right to do with your body as you see fit and the government can't interfer. It's illegal for a variety of reasons but the fact is the government CAN interfer with it and CAN prevent you from doing with your body as you see fit.

It has to do with bioethics among other things. The government controls and regulates this act because it involves the rights and safety of many, not just the one.

Nope it all starts with your decission to do so which the government says you can't. The safety issue is a strawman arguement, we transplant body parts everyday, the saftey issues have been worked out long ago. This has to do with ONE issue and ONE issue alone. Can you sell them? Nope. The government CAN intercede.

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

Stinger said:
obtuse: I can't refute so I will dismiss

Reality: there has been no germane point to refute.

Sorry fundimental rights are not so narrowly tailored. What you are saying is a woman has a right to abortion because she has a right to abortion, that is called a flat statement, not an arguement.

She has a right to an abortion because she is not infringing on the rights of others.

So rights can be sophmoricaly discussed on that premise but not all rights have anything to do wtih anyone else's. So what does that has what to do with this? The government still prevents you from selling your body parts, you do not have absolute control over you body and what you do with it as is asserted by the pro-abortion side. My selling by body parts infringes on no one else's right to do anything.

It infringes on the rights of people on waiting lists. It infringes on the rights of the receiver when the body part is defective...I am not sure what is so hard about this that keeps your from wrapping your mind around the concept.

Me>> Sorry but it is YOUR side that brings the disjoined logic in order to try to get around the fundimental flaws in your arguements.

Just review the post, a fundimental right is declared when shown to be a falacious statement the "buts" start coming in.

There were not "buts" before you obtusely forced the restatement of givens. It is a given in our philosophy that your rights cannot infringe upon the rights of others. There has been nothing falacious in this discussion. There HAS BEEN an opportunistic utilization of the "playing dumb" tactic on your part, however.

Has nothing to do with anyone elses rights, but again you try to divert. I own my house, I can't build on the front 30 feet of it. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Public interest...but then, you know that.

Look you are the one who said I have a right to live anywhere I want to, you are disproving your own arguement.

My exact statement was: You have the right to live anywhere you want to so long so long as no one else is living there. It was an illustration of right to property and privacy. If I have to dumb down every statement to avoid your penchant for playing dumb, I can do that.

You are making this up.

No, you are obtusely playing dumb and forcing statement and restatement of givens. Please try to keep your points within the realms of accepted reality.

Breast implants that is, OK cite where that was the reason the court ruled as it did? Don't bother you can't because that had nothing to do with the issue. It was a health issue and the government said no because studies showed health problems, so they made it illegal for a woman to do something with her body that she wanted to do.

In this instance, it wasn't a denial of women's right to breast implants. It was a denial of selling unsafe products to consumers. There are safe breast implants at this point; there is no restriction on a woman's right (or a man's in some strange cases) to receive them. Your argument is still specious.

Because you don't have a fundimental right to do with your body as you see fit and the government can't interfer. It's illegal for a variety of reasons but the fact is the government CAN interfer with it and CAN prevent you from doing with your body as you see fit.

Only when you do with your body something that can potentially harm another or infringe upon the rights of another. This is not going to change no matter how many times you argue against it.

Nope it all starts with your decission to do so which the government says you can't. The safety issue is a strawman arguement, we transplant body parts everyday, the saftey issues have been worked out long ago. This has to do with ONE issue and ONE issue alone. Can you sell them? Nope. The government CAN intercede.

No safety issues have been worked out with the selling of body parts because the issues and risks become too great. As I said before, you may wish to check out the wealth of information and ideas in the thread on that particular subject before you make poorly conceived statements/arguments. The selling of body parts still is irrelevant when discussing abortion.

Vader · Nov 22, 2006

BubbaBob said:
It's called the Freedom of Information Act.

BubbaBob

Personal medical records are not subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

Stinger · Nov 22, 2006

jallman said:
Reality: there has been no germane point to refute.

So whether a woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit without government interfence is not germane to the issue of abortion. Since there is no such right you may have a point.

She has a right to an abortion because she is not infringing on the rights of others.

So she has a right because she has a right. Sorry that's a flat arguement, proves nothing. Her smoking marijuna infringes on no one else yet she doesn't have that right. Her right to breast implants infringed on no one else yet that was taken away from her by the government. Her right to sell her body infringes on no one but it is illegal.

It infringes on the rights of people on waiting lists. It infringes on the rights of the receiver when the body part is defective...I am not sure what is so hard about this that keeps your from wrapping your mind around the concept.

Those are the most ridiculas arguements I have heard yet. Her decission to do what she wants with her body if she wants to sell infringes on NO ONE. You're saying a person on the waiting list has a RIGHT TO HER BODY! You are stretched beyond the limits of belief here.

There were not "buts".................

Oh they are all over it, she has a right to control her body but.............

me>> Has nothing to do with anyone elses rights, but again you try to divert. I own my house, I can't build on the front 30 feet of it. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Public interest...but then, you know that.

There's a but right there...but then you know that.

My exact statement was: You have the right to live anywhere you want to so long so long as no one else is living there.

No I don't. That's absurd. There is an vacant lot next to where I work. I have no right to live there. So let's get away from these specious claims and stick with the topic and the subject.

It was an illustration of right to property and privacy.

If I have to dumb down every statement to avoid your penchant for playing dumb, I can do that.

I don't think they could get much dumber that they are already.

And what right to privacy? Did you fill out your last census form under penalty of law? There went your privacy.

No, you are obtusely playing dumb and forcing statement and restatement of givens. Please try to keep your points within the realms of accepted reality.

And your contenued whining does not your point make.

In this instance, it wasn't a denial of women's right to breast implants. It was a denial of selling unsafe products to consumers.

So what? If she has a right to do with her body as she pleases without government interference.....................

Only when you do with your body something that can potentially harm another or infringe upon the rights of another.

Ahhhh, suicide is against the law in 49 out of 50 states, the government can tell you you can't even end the life that keeps your body going.

This is not going to change no matter how many times you argue against it.

I think that applies to YOUR arguement.

No safety issues have been worked out with the selling of body parts

There would be no difference between donate and paid for body parts, the same standards apply and they have been long ago worked out, Phoney arguement (since you take offense to specious).

because the issues and risks become too great.

Same as with donated, but so what if the government can't control what you do with your body whether you are selling a part or buying a part to attach to it.

As I said before, you may wish to check out the wealth of information and ideas in the thread on that particular subject before you make poorly conceived statements/arguments.

There is a wealth of information and if you choose to study it you will find you have no right to do with your body as you see fit.

The selling of body parts still is irrelevant when discussing abortion.

If the justification for allowing abortion is that we have a right to do with our bodies as we see fit it is. You just can't refut it so you have to try these silly dismissals.

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

Stinger said:
So whether a woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit without government interfence is not germane to the issue of abortion. Since there is no such right you may have a point.

Nice try, but you have yet to prove that she has no right.

So she has a right because she has a right. Sorry that's a flat arguement, proves nothing. Her smoking marijuna infringes on no one else yet she doesn't have that right. Her right to breast implants infringed on no one else yet that was taken away from her by the government. Her right to sell her body infringes on no one but it is illegal.

She has a right because we maintain bodily sovereignty as a right. This is not new or innovative thought. If you want precedent for the right of boldily sovereignty, you only need to look at Tennesse v Gardner...to start. The practice of abortion is specific to her body and no one else's. The consumption of marijuana isn't specifically illegal in many states. It is the traffic, production, selling, and buying of a controlled substance that is the issue.

Those are the most ridiculas arguements I have heard yet. Her decission to do what she wants with her body if she wants to sell infringes on NO ONE. You're saying a person on the waiting list has a RIGHT TO HER BODY! You are stretched beyond the limits of belief here.

Except that health and safety standards must be maintained. Recipients must be protected from fraud, a black market must be prevented...a host of other reasons that selling of body parts goes beyond bodily sovereignty. It's not my problem that your limits of belief don't include reality.

Oh they are all over it, she has a right to control her body but.............

There is no but. She has a right to control her body. Her body and her body alone. When that moves beyond just controlling her body, then there is some influence by the government.

me>> Has nothing to do with anyone elses rights, but again you try to divert. I own my house, I can't build on the front 30 feet of it. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

There's a but right there...but then you know that.

Building a house has nothing to do with bodily sovereignty so your argument was irrelevant to begin with. I apologize for even indulging it.

No I don't. That's absurd. There is an vacant lot next to where I work. I have no right to live there. So let's get away from these specious claims and stick with the topic and the subject.

You brought it up. Again, I apologize for indulging it; especially knowing your penchant for bringing up the irrelevant.

I don't think they could get much dumber that they are already.

One would venture a guess that your real problem is that you don't think at all.

And what right to privacy? Did you fill out your last census form under penalty of law? There went your privacy.

Irrelevant. I never said I agree with filling out the census.

And your contenued whining does not your point make.

No one is whining here except you. Oh, my bad...you aren't whining. You are just being completely illogical.

So what? If she has a right to do with her body as she pleases without government interference.....................

And she does...bodily sovereignty. Don't be jealous. You have the same right.

Ahhhh, suicide is against the law in 49 out of 50 states, the government can tell you you can't even end the life that keeps your body going.

And that is another debate that actually is relevant to this one. Good job. I cannot make any assertions about suicide being illegal as it is something I have mixed feelings about. This time, declining to discuss that point is my fault entirely, because, as I said, I don't really know what to think about that.

I think that applies to YOUR arguement.

Whine that tune out all you want. It doesn't make it true.

There would be no difference between donate and paid for body parts, the same standards apply and they have been long ago worked out, Phoney arguement (since you take offense to specious).

There is a big difference. One involves commercial enterprise and the other does not. Further, I take no offense to the use of the word specious. I take exception to the IMPROPER use of the word specious.

Same as with donated, but so what if the government can't control what you do with your body whether you are selling a part or buying a part to attach to it.

No matter how many times you repeat this refrain, there is a difference and the differences are obvious if you stop to...I don't know...think about it. I can't think for you.

There is a wealth of information and if you choose to study it you will find you have no right to do with your body as you see fit.

I have, and there is a right to bodily sovereignty.

If the justification for allowing abortion is that we have a right to do with our bodies as we see fit it is. You just can't refut it so you have to try these silly dismissals.

I think pages of us going back and forth is proof enough that your claim that I am being dismissive is an outright lie. You have yet to prove no right to bodily sovereignty. Until you give this up or show your proof, then I am perfectly justified and content to let you continue to fail. Now if you should ever concede your failure or be successful in proving your point, then we can move on.

Stinger · Nov 22, 2006

jallman said:
Nice try, but you have yet to prove that she has no right.

ahhh that would be proving a negative, what I have shown is there are many aspects of controlling your body which are illegal, and you nor anyone else has shown there is such a right.

She has a right because we maintain bodily sovereignty as a right. This is not new or innovative thought. If you want precedent for the right of boldily sovereignty, you only need to look at Tennesse v Gardner...to start.

If you believe something there supports your case cite it and post a link.

The practice of abortion is specific to her body and no one else's.

So what?

The consumption of marijuana isn't specifically illegal in many states.

But it is in many just as with other drugs.

And a 15 year old doesn't have the right to even ingest alchol into her body.

It is the traffic, production, selling, and buying of a controlled substance that is the issue.

Those are illegal too, and if you show traces of THC in your blood even if you are not under the effects you can be fired and you have no right of recourse.

Except that health and safety standards must be maintained.

Strawman alert.

Recipients must be protected from fraud, a black market must be prevented...

:rofl the black market exist NOW preciesly because it is illegal to sell your body parts. If it were legal the black market would go away.

a host of other reasons that selling of body parts goes beyond bodily sovereignty. It's not my problem that your limits of belief don't include reality.

The only reason you can't sell but are free to give them away is that the government does not grant you the ability to do so with the body you own.

And why don't you grow up and realize that you petty little insults do not make your case?

There is no but. She has a right to control her body. Her body and her body alone. When that moves beyond just controlling her body, then there is some influence by the government.

She can't sell parts of the body she owns can she? She can't exchange it's use for sex for money can she? She can't even legal stop it from working.

Building a house has nothing to do with bodily sovereignty so your argument was irrelevant to begin with. I apologize for even indulging it.

You were right there bringing in the tangents.

One would venture a guess that your real problem is that you don't think at all.

And when you have nothing intelligent to say...............

Irrelevant. I never said I agree with filling out the census.

Once again the phoney dismissals when you get cornered. The census is LEGAL whether you agree with it is moot. And it invades your privacy. And the government can force to divulge that private information because you don't have a right to privacy.

No one is whining here except you. Oh, my bad...you aren't whining. You are just being completely illogical.

Agreed.

And that is another debate that actually is relevant to this one.

It is relevant to YOUR premise that you have a right to control your body and the state can't interfer which you then use to justify abortion.

Just one more example of how that is a phoney arguement.

Good job. I cannot make any assertions about suicide being illegal as it is something I have mixed feelings about.

I could care less what your assertions are about it, it is illegal and another example of how you don't have the legal right to do with your body as you see fit.

This time, declining to discuss that point is my fault entirely, because, as I said, I don't really know what to think about that.

What you think about susicide is irrelevent, you don't have a right to stop the body you own.

I have, and there is a right to bodily sovereignty.

Elaborate and cite it.

I think pages of us going back and forth is proof enough that your claim that I am being dismissive is an outright lie.

No this post even shows more of it.

You have yet to prove no right to bodily sovereignty.

Explain how you are applying it here.

Where does that give you the right to do anything with your body without government interference?

Until you give this up or show your proof, then I am perfectly justified and content to let you continue to fail. Now if you should ever concede your failure or be successful in proving your point, then we can move on.

Since you have not rebutted my points and I have shown yours to be fallacious as in how you tried in this post............

DeeJayH · Nov 22, 2006

jallman said:
She has a right because we maintain bodily sovereignty as a right. This is not new or innovative thought. If you want precedent for the right of boldily sovereignty, you only need to look at Tennesse v Gardner...to start. The practice of abortion is specific to her body and no one else's. The consumption of marijuana isn't specifically illegal in many states. It is the traffic, production, selling, and buying of a controlled substance that is the issue.

you forgot possession and being under the influence, regardless of whether or not one is operating a motor vehicle

kind of blows away the nonsense about it not being illegal to consume it

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

Stinger said:
ahhh that would be proving a negative, what I have shown is there are many aspects of controlling your body which are illegal, and you nor anyone else has shown there is such a right.

This same sad refrain is starting to sound like a "did not...did too" situation. The only aspects of controlling your body which you have shown are illegal are aspects that involve others and their bodily sovereignty. You have never disproven the right to bodily sovereignty despite your numerous attempts at irrelevent interjection.

If you believe something there supports your case cite it and post a link.

I am not going to google for you.

So what?

So being that it does not involve any infliction upon the rights of others, deference is given to her bodily sovereignty.

But it is in many just as with other drugs.

To quote you "So what?"

And a 15 year old doesn't have the right to even ingest alchol into her body.

A fifteen year old is a minor and subject to a different standard. Minors do not have all of the rights granted an adult. But then, you knew this...

Those are illegal too, and if you show traces of THC in your blood even if you are not under the effects you can be fired and you have no right of recourse.

That has to do with the right of the employer, not a restriction upon the rights of the employee. Besides, smoking marijuana does not fall under bodily sovereignty because its effects linger and make the workplace unsafe. The employee also has the right to exercise the choice to work elsewhere if they don't like the drug policies. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.

Strawman alert.

Perhaps you should look up strawman too.

:rofl the black market exist NOW preciesly because it is illegal to sell your body parts. If it were legal the black market would go away.

Pure speculation.

The only reason you can't sell but are free to give them away is that the government does not grant you the ability to do so with the body you own.

I would like to see some form of reference that gives you that idea.

And why don't you grow up and realize that you petty little insults do not make your case?

I insulted no one. I made a statement in response to your slight. If you can't handle retaliation, don't start getting sharp, sport.

She can't sell parts of the body she owns can she?

And?

She can't exchange it's use for sex for money can she?

That's not a standard. Prostitution is legal in vegas. In any event, I am not quite sure why prostitution is illegal anyway, unless you want to involve public health and safety standards.

She can't even legal stop it from working.

As I said, I cannot make any assertions about this topic at this time.

You were right there bringing in the tangents.

No, I was indulging your tangents. As I said, I shouldn't have bothered.

And when you have nothing intelligent to say...............

It was kind of hard to reply intelligently to "your thoughts are dumb." But good for the goose...

Once again the phoney dismissals when you get cornered.

You have yet to corner me....

The census is LEGAL whether you agree with it is moot.

Abortion is LEGAL; whether you agree with it or not is moot, also.

And it invades your privacy. And the government can force to divulge that private information because you don't have a right to privacy.

Okay, so for now I will concede the right to privacy. Privacy and bodily sovereignty are not dependent upon eachother. It is no loss to concede that small point if it will end your whining.

Agreed.

I am glad you agree that you are being completely illogical. Admission is often the first step. :mrgreen:

It is relevant to YOUR premise that you have a right to control your body and the state can't interfer which you then use to justify abortion.

I said it was relevant. What more do you want? Or are you just proving that you prefer to be argumentative?

I could care less what your assertions are about it, it is illegal and another example of how you don't have the legal right to do with your body as you see fit.

Then I could care less what your assertions concerning abortion are. It is legal and women do have a right to it as they currently have a right to bodily sovereignty.

What you think about susicide is irrelevent, you don't have a right to stop the body you own.

And that has solely to do with medical ethics. It is currently believed that a wish to die is indicative of mental health problems. That is the only assertion I can make about this topic. And if what I think is irrelevant, then why are you spending so much time discussing the issue with me?

Elaborate and cite it.

I am not doing your research for you. I will provide you with some precedents and then you may do what you wish from there:

Winston V Lee
Tennesse V Garner
Schmerber v. California

No this post even shows more of it.

Says you.

Explain how you are applying it here.

Where does that give you the right to do anything with your body without government interference?

The individual acts as a free moral agent and may exercise that right as a free moral agent with consideration for the autonomy and rights of other free moral agents. This is a fundamental point in the philosophy of our government.

Since you have not rebutted my points and I have shown yours to be fallacious as in how you tried in this post............

Was there something to come after the little dots that would lend some truth to this sentence fragment? Or are you just trying to pass off another open-ended, illogical, and dishonest opinion as fact?

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

DeeJayH said:
you forgot possession and being under the influence, regardless of whether or not one is operating a motor vehicle

kind of blows away the nonsense about it not being illegal to consume it

Please provide reference.

DeeJayH · Nov 22, 2006

jallman said:
Please provide reference.

Stinger should be amused with this

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

DeeJayH said:
Stinger should be amused with this

Especially considering stinger's idea of a reference is an opinion with more speculation and conjecture. Stinger's amusement at my request hardly interests me. Now where is your reference material?

1069 · Nov 22, 2006

Prostitution is legal in vegas.

Actually- just to be nit-picky- it's illegal in Vegas. Legal in the state of Nevada, but illegal inside the Las Vegas city limits.
The infamous legal "whorehouses" operate on the outskirts of vegas, beyond the city limits.

jallman · Nov 22, 2006

1069 said:
Actually- just to be nit-picky- it's illegal in Vegas. Legal in the state of Nevada, but illegal inside the Las Vegas city limits.
The infamous legal "whorehouses" operate on the outskirts of vegas, beyond the city limits.

That's right. My apologies...yes it is illegal IN Vegas, but legal in the rest of the state. Thanks for the correction.

CoffeeSaint · Nov 22, 2006

Stinger said:
He has to be caught first doesn't he which goes back to the OP here. You guys want him to get away with it so the abortion process is not hampered.

You shot who in the what now? In what universe have I posted something about, "Men who have sex with 14-year-olds should get away with this so that she can have the abortion."
He has to be caught, yes. However, making it illegal for her to get an abortion is certainly not going to make it easier to catch him. If she protects him, he probably won't get caught; it makes no difference whether or not she bears a child to term. It does make a difference, however, in the course of her life, and hers are the rights I'm concerned with.

Catching statutory rapists is possibly the most absurd reason I've ever heard for banning abortion. Can you explain how that logically follows for me?

Stinger said:
I'm talking about the parents, you would allow him to get away with it, taking her to get an abortion which might effect her for the rest of her life, after already being raped, statitorially, and your happey with the parents no ever knowing, even supporting the proposition.

To be frank, I supported the proposition because it isolated abortion as the one medical procedure that 14-16 year olds would need to notify their parents about. If the next ballot includes a measure stating that 14-16 year olds need parental notification and/or permission for any serious medical procedure, I'd probably vote for it. I don't think that most 15-year-olds are mature enough to make this decision themselves.

However: I am concerned only with her rights, not at all with those of her parents. If she's having sex and getting an abortion and they have no clue, that is something I consider their fault. Maybe that's just me. If she feels she cannot approach her parents for help and support in this situation, that is absolutely their fault.

Stinger said:
He would be in jail wouldn't, and I bet you would want him in jail, and if the girl went to a doctor to get treated for the beating I bet you would want the doctor to report it wouldn't you? But abortion........................

If he beat her to death? Yes, I would want him in jail. You wouldn't?

No, not for abortion. Abortion is legal, and a fetus is not a person. It has no rights.

Stinger said:
If course not, does the 14 year old have a right to kill her child?

Uh . . . yes. You didn't know that?

Stinger said:
If we allow her to make the decission about abortion then surely we should allow her to make the decission about having sex in the first place so why don't we make sex with minors legal if they want to engage in it?

Do you think it would make any difference whether or not we legalized sex for minors? Do you think minors avoid sex because it is against the law? You don't spend much time around teenagers, do you? I do. If they do not have sex, it is not because of the laws, it is because of their parents, their friends, and their morals.

I don't think teens should have sex. But I know they will. I don't see why we should have a double standard, one for women over 18 and one for women under 18; if an adult woman has the right to an abortion, so does a teen. And I think a woman should have the right to an abortion.

Stinger said:
Again, perhaps you should take YOUR premises to their logical conclusions.

I'm sorry, what are we arguing about here? I could have sworn it was whether or not a woman has the right to control her body. Suddenly it's teen sex? Is this some kind of strategy of yours, that when you aren't sure what to say you just act appalled by the immorality of anything and everything your opponents say?

Doesn't seem very effective to me, really. I find logic and consistency more effective if one actually wants to progress in arguments.