• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Against/not against.

Are you against or not against the following?


  • Total voters
    45

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Last edited:
To quote my brother in law, who flies on average 100 times a year:

"if some one gets off seeing my junk, but it makes it safer to fly, I am OK with him getting off."

I assume you mean not against a right to abortion, which is slightly different from how you phrased it. I support the right to have an abortion.
 
The body scanners don't make it any safer to fly. We're no safer now than we were on September 10th, but we're a lot more afraid and a lot more willing to tolerate inconveniences and intrusions.

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.
 
I am actually against this poll, since it's worded oddly and one thing seems to have little to do with another. I think I'll see how this plays out before I decide whether or not to join the game.
 
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.
Couldn't you have added fluoridation as well. Just think how much more confusing it would be. :2razz:
 
Kal, this is a weird one bro.. I'm not even sure I understand the premise? :)


Tim-
 
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.


Makes more sense than the current cluster**** that passes for airport "security".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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 don't have an issue with either one, but it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I voted wrong.
 
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.
 
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?

After the first trimester, yes, a woman should have a medical need to be body scanned.

2: Are you against/not against abortion?

I think abortion unnecessarily exposes the general public to abuse and does little if anything to curb terrorism.

There will be no "other" option as quite frankly I don't care about "other" options. This thread is not about "other" options.

I love you.
 
Ridiculous, one has nothing to do with the other, so no vote...
If a correlation can be established, let me know.
 
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 agree with Viktyr Korimir: we should just give every unborn a box cutter and accept the fact that were gona lose a woman now and then.
 
I don't have an issue with either one, but it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I voted wrong.

I still have no idea what this thread is about. I looked at the poll options and was like "anti-body-scan + anti-abortion, that's me".
 
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).

First there really wasn't a need to post this twice.

All that a doctor would need to do is appear reluctant to the idea. If the woman persisted and he "gave in" he could go on record as being pressured into it. Which would then constitute entrapment.


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.

Really? Do explain how this would be done please.

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.

Even the most healthy of women can have a miscarriage. (heck a simple herbal drink can make a woman miscarry) Scientists are by no means 100% positive about what all causes miscarriages. You're right though. All it takes for a warrant to be issued is probable cause. Which I suppose someone calling in could give. There is however a problem with this. How many people would use such an easily available system of griefing? How many pissed off ex-boyfriends, jealous women, pissed off co-workers would use such a system to embarress and hurt someone? How many peoples 4th amendment rights is it ok to violate just to make sure that they didn't have an abortion performed? Irregardless if they were actually pregnant or not or just had a simple miscarriage? Those peoples rights would be violated.

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

Read above. Considering what I just said I would imagine that the requirements to get such a warrant for a "possible" abortion case would have to be tighter than that of a normal warrant. And even then there is no gauruntee that the tests would detect that an abortion was induced as there are many many ways in which to induce an abortion. Not all of them detectable. Another reason to require more than just one persons anonymous phone call to get such a warrant.

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

It is far easier to catch someone that is doing drugs than it is to catch a woman getting an abortion done on video.

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.

Sting operations would be far less effective on a doctor than it is a druggy. OH sure you might get a few. But not near as many I think you think would be caught. As for citizens reporting criminal activity...read above. Also consider how many people there are that DON'T report crimes in progress...much less one that they are not even sure is happening as would have to be the case in an abortion case (again, assuming that the citizen doing the reporting is doing so honestly).
 
Back
Top Bottom