View Poll Results: Are you against or not against the following?

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am against both TSA Body Scanners and Abortion.

    15 24.19%
  • I am againt TSA Body Scanners but am not against Abortion.

    15 24.19%
  • I am not against both TSA Body Scanners and Abortion.

    27 43.55%
  • I am not against TSA Body Scanners but am against Abortion.

    5 8.06%
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: Against/not against.

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #12
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 02-12-11 at 04:09 AM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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. This is how the SC saw it, I believe. Kal'Stang's argument, though pretty original, is not so crazy.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #15
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 02-12-11 at 04:35 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #16
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    You're right it does not require "peeking", instead according to your scenarios the state uses warrant and seize said record for prosecutions. The question is whether the state has enough compelling reason/interest to subject citizens to all these over an aboriton, and if you don't believe that the feotus has the rights of an individual, then it doesn't.

    Same with the airport scan: will the scan improve safety enough to justify the invasion of privacy? If it does, I think most poeple would not be against it.

  7. #17
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    How would a sting operation be set up without leading to entrapment? 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. Again, 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. 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...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.

    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.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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.
    Thanks, it actually took me a couple of days to figure out how I would post the original thought before I even posted the thread. I just hope I can continue along this thought line enough to make my point at least reasonably looked at. lol
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #19
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Against/not against.

    I don't have an issue with either one, but it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I voted wrong.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #20
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Against/not against.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    How would a sting operation be set up without leading to entrapment?
    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).





    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.
    Getting an abortion for provider attempt is better than nothing.

    Again, 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.
    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).

    As for getting the women that get the procedure done...well that would be next to impossible.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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...
    Citizens report crimes all the time and police check them out, why would an abortions be any different if they became illegal?

    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.
    I am sure that the same thing was said about other criminals. However people are caught on camera committing crimes.

    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.
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •