Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

okie wrote:

They should have named themselves "Unplanned Parenthood Prevention Services." They have little to do with planned parenthood as far as I could see on their website. Its all about preventing unplanned parenthood.

Perhaps you should rethink the meaning of "plan"/"plannned"?

Quote:

plan (Verb)
[...]
intransitive verb
1 : to make plans : DEVISE, CONTRIVE, SCHEME -she must plan -- plot if she must -- Pearl Buck-

2 : to set up economic or social controls or regulations -found planning necessary during the war- -can be prepared to scrap the whole system of planning when the emergency passes -- New Republic-

source: "plan." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (6 Jun. 2006).

0 Replies

Okie-You must pay close attention to Mr. Walter Hinteler. He is a trained linguist and he will correct your linguistic mistakes. It is regrettable, however, that Mr. Walter Hinteler, at times , thinks that his linguistic expertise enables him to fully understand the Zeitgiest of the USA. It doesn't, of course, since he is not a citizen of the USA and has not been totally immersed in its culture since his birth as you have, Okie.

Note his fine linguistic post but write off any comments about the USA that come from Mr. Walter Hinteler.

0 Replies

Well, Mr. BernardR, Walter's comments on the USA are no farther from the mark than those of many Americans who post here...

0 Replies

Really? Do you have some examples or are you speaking off the cuff?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Please explain how preventing unplanned parenthood is contradictory to the name Planned Parenthood.

okie wrote:

They should have named themselves "Unplanned Parenthood Prevention Services." They have little to do with planned parenthood as far as I could see on their website. Its all about preventing unplanned parenthood.

Okie, most people do become parents eventually. There are two opposing types of parenthood-planned and unplanned. If an organization serves to hold down the phenomen of unplanned parenthood, common sense tells us that it also serves to promote planned parenthood.

Your argument makes about as much sense as a driving student demanding his money back for a traffic safety course claiming, "Your course didn't teach me anything about traffic safety-all it taught me was to how to avoid getting into a car crash!"

okie wrote:

If you want to talk about hypocrisy of names, what about pro-choice? As Baldimo points out, you are not much about pro-choice, or even pro-consideration of any other choice besides abortion.

I have never come out for a law forbidding any place from advising women not to get an abortion, only that they be required to be honest about what they are doing, as Planned Parenthood is honest about what it does. To advertise under Abortion Services when the place will NEVER advise or help a woman to get one is plainly fraudulent and should be outlawed, just like any fraud should be outlawed.

Besides, the pro-choice side is well named because they say a woman should have the legal choice to have, or not have an abortion. The anti-choice side thinks a woman should have only one legal choice-to not have an abortion.

okie wrote:

I didn't create the equivalence. Its already there to some extent. Planned Parenthood are the ones using the name, not me. If you want to be honest, apply the same rules to everybody.

I am applying the same rules to everybody. Planned Parenthood shows you how to prevent unplanned parenthood-which clearly furthers the cause of planned parenthood. They are honest about what they do. Anti-abortion centers which will never advise or help you to get an abortion but which advertise under Abortion Services are clearly NOT being honest about what they do.

okie wrote:

I've never said the advertisement under abortion services could not be misleading. I only contend that misleading does not necessarily constitute fraud.

Advertising under Abortion Services when you will NEVER advise or facilitate an abortion by anyone is not just misleading, it is outright lying. And misleading advertisements usually do constitute fraud.

okie wrote:

Besides, the service has something to do with abortion. They provide counseling in regard to abortion,

And dark has something to do with light. And warm has something to do with cold. Everything has something to do with it's opposite. But in most cases, advertising something while providing it's exact opposite is illegal, which providing anti-abortion counseling while advertising under Abortion Services certainly should be.

okie wrote:

Misleading advertising is rampant, both intentional and unintentional, and little of it is ever prosecuted because it falls in a gray area.

Much of it IS prosecuted. People go to jail for it. If fraud is such a trivial thing, why do most cities and all states have fraud divisions in their police departments?

okie wrote:

People have a brain and they should use it. You claim its all about choice. Well, use your brain and choose then.

When people are lied to or intentionally misled, they cannot make an informed choice. A woman not only has the right to choose whether to have or not have an abortion, she also has the right to choose who she will have advise her. When these advisors deliberately mislead about what they offer, it is the same as a stock salesman lying about what he has to offer. Misleading advertising for anything should be illegal.

Quote:

None of these centers are forcing anyone not to have an abortion, no more than a pregnancy center or Planned Parenthood forces the people not to become a parent.

Sorry, false advertising is false advertising. If a store advertises that they have a 300 watt per channel amplifier for sale at $199, then it better have a stock of them when they place the ad or they can get prosecuted. Sure nobody forces you to buy anything else when it turns out they never had one-but the store can get prosecuted anyway.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Perhaps you should rethink the meaning of "plan"/"plannned"?

Whats wrong with the name Unplanned Parenthood Prevention Services? Its about preventing unplanned parenthood. Its not perfect, but its not my fault. Look at what I had to work with in the name "Planned Parenthood." Trying to make an accurate name out of a misleading name like that is difficult.

kelticwizard wrote:

Okie, most people do become parents eventually. There are two opposing types of parenthood-planned and unplanned. If an organization serves to hold down the phenomen of unplanned parenthood, common sense tells us that it also serves to promote planned parenthood.

Obviously you are wrong. Planned parenthood is all about preventing unplanned parenthood. I checked their website and I couldn't find much of anything about planned parenthood. Just because you prevent children does not mean there is a plan to have children later. Sometimes there is, but I don't see much evidence that Planned Parenthood cares about that. If there are two opposing types of parenthood, planned and unplanned, and Planned Parenthood only deals with the other type, why should they misrepresent what they do by naming it after the type they don't deal with much? As I said, the first time I found out what they did, I was pretty dumbfounded as to why they would name their organization what they did. Of course, they would not want to be accurate and say "Planned Abortion." That doesn't sound very good, does it? So the skunks they are, they do their dastardly deeds under a name that makes the scoundrels sound good. Motherhood and apple pie, right. Killing the unborn is not that attractive so they need a name that they think will make them respectable. Well, it doesn't work very well. Its deceitful and misleading.

Look, Planned Parenthood is not the issue. I only cited it as an example. Not a perfect one, but one nonetheless. Bottom line, unless true fraud is taking place, bilking people out of money or blatant false advertising, the law is not going to waste their time on it. If the advertising said, "abortions performed here" instead of "abortion services," it would be more clear cut in my opinion. This is clearly not about fraud, but about protecting your little agenda, abortion. If it was about fraud, the legislation would be more inclusive of the same type of fraud throughout all businesses.

0 Replies

Okie- It is clear that Keltic Wizard is defending the indefensible. Millions of Americans think that Abortion on demand is Murder on Demand.

The US Supreme Court wrote Roe Vs. Wade. Lawyers who read the reasoning of the USSC in that case can hardly believe what they are reading. You may be aware that the so called "right of privacy" which is key to the findings in Roe Vs. Wade is not found in the constitution. Instead, it was created by Justice Blackmun who wrote-

"THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXPLICITY MENTION ANY RIGHT OF PRIVACY, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution"

Apparently, Blackmun, who wrote the Majority decision in Roe Vs. Wade FELT that the right of privacy, torturously wrung from only God and Justice Douglas( with his spooky "penumbras formed by emanations) knows where, includes the right of abortion. There is no LEGAL argument in the voluminous opinion that the right of privacy includes the right to abortion.

However, Roe Vs. Wade is the law of the land. USSC judges are loathe to overturn settled decisions in light of the principle of "Stare Decisis" but, and this is crucial to the argument on Planned Parenthood and Keltic Wizard's twisted reasoning, States may vote to set up reasonable laws which, in the final analysis, will so enervate the basis of Roe Vs. Wade that the Decision will be almost moot.

States are able, since it is not against the law, to provide Counseling to those women who are considering an abortion.

States are able to set up laws requiring that parents of those under 18 be informed of projected abortions.

States are able to set up 24 or 48 hour waiting periods.

I am very much afraid, Okie, that Keltic Wizard is aware that the tide is turning against those who would murder potential life.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Obviously you are wrong. Planned parenthood is all about preventing unplanned parenthood. I checked their website and I couldn't find much of anything about planned parenthood. Just because you prevent children does not mean there is a plan to have children later. Sometimes there is, but I don't see much evidence that Planned Parenthood cares about that.

Because that usually happens naturally. Most people become parents, either in unplanned or planned fashion. Eliminate the unplanned parenthood, and what's left?

These little meaningless word games you are playing are a desperate attempt on your part to say, "Well bith sides do it to some extent, so what's the big deal?" Except that both sides DON'T do it-only the anti-choice side does it. Planned Parenthood is honest about what it does.

okie wrote:

Bottom line, unless true fraud is taking place, bilking people out of money or blatant false advertising, the law is not going to waste their time on it. If the advertising said, "abortions performed here" instead of "abortion services," it would be more clear cut in my opinion.

Your opinion is clearly inaccurate. Abortion Services clearly means that abortions are either advised, or facilitated in some way, and a center that will NEVER do any of this is not providing abortion services and is engaging in false advertising.

okie wrote:

This is clearly not about fraud, but about protecting your little agenda, abortion.

This is clearly about fraud. Advertising under Abortion Services when abortions will never be advised or facilitated in any way is clearly fraud.

okie wrote:

If it was about fraud, the legislation would be more inclusive of the same type of fraud throughout all businesses.

As I have explained several times, most scams were legal when they first appeared. Rolling back the odometer on a used car was once legal, until the legislature realized how deceptive it was and it made it illegal. A high percentage of the laws governing truth in lending, truth in car sales, truth in home sales and many other industries were written to prevent one specific type of fraud. This scam might not presently break the law, but these centers are clearly not offering what they are claiming and therefore what they do should be made illegal.

0 Replies

Okie- I am very much afraid that Keltic Wizard missed my post. Or that he cannot deal with its logic and documentation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- It is clear that Keltic Wizard is defending the indefensible. Millions of Americans think that Abortion on demand is Murder on Demand.

The US Supreme Court wrote Roe Vs. Wade. Lawyers who read the reasoning of the USSC in that case can hardly believe what they are reading. You may be aware that the so called "right of privacy" which is key to the findings in Roe Vs. Wade is not found in the constitution. Instead, it was created by Justice Blackmun who wrote-

"THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXPLICITY MENTION ANY RIGHT OF PRIVACY, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution"

Apparently, Blackmun, who wrote the Majority decision in Roe Vs. Wade FELT that the right of privacy, torturously wrung from only God and Justice Douglas( with his spooky "penumbras formed by emanations) knows where, includes the right of abortion. There is no LEGAL argument in the voluminous opinion that the right of privacy includes the right to abortion.

However, Roe Vs. Wade is the law of the land. USSC judges are loathe to overturn settled decisions in light of the principle of "Stare Decisis" but, and this is crucial to the argument on Planned Parenthood and Keltic Wizard's twisted reasoning, States may vote to set up reasonable laws which, in the final analysis, will so enervate the basis of Roe Vs. Wade that the Decision will be almost moot.

States are able, since it is not against the law, to provide Counseling to those women who are considering an abortion.

States are able to set up laws requiring that parents of those under 18 be informed of projected abortions.

States are able to set up 24 or 48 hour waiting periods.

I am very much afraid, Okie, that Keltic Wizard is aware that the tide is turning against those who would murder potential life.

0 Replies

KW:

Quote:

Your opinion is clearly inaccurate. Abortion Services clearly means that abortions are either advised, or facilitated in some way, and a center that will NEVER do any of this is not providing abortion services and is engaging in false advertising.

They are advising on abortions you just don't agree with what they advise. There for you don't want them to be able to offer their advice.
I know you keep saying that you don't want them to be banned but I think you really do. Once again they offer advice just not the advice you want them to offer. They discuss abortion and I'm sure they tell them some facts as well as what could happen and I'm sure they don't do it in a very cherry light like you would want them to but they still advise. Their main objective is to save lives and offer alternatives to abortion. Is this so wrong? If the woman wants to have an abortion then all she has to do is end the discussion and walk out. They aren't going to tie her to a chair and shine a light in her eyes now are they? You seem to think they do. They talk and offer advice on abortion or not having an abortion. Please tell me what is wrong with that.

Does Planned Parenthood ever tell someone not to have an abortion? I don't think they do. I remember that abortions were supposed to be for the health of the mother but it has turned into the whole sale slaughter of those not able to protect themselves. Today abortion is used much like the condom it is nothing short of birth control. Don't want to be pregnant then have an abortion. It has nothing to do with the health of the mother unless you consider pregnancy to be a health hazard. Sure women put on weight during pregnancy but does it really hurt them?

0 Replies

Some responses here reminds me of the Nuremberg trials:
trial number 8, the RuSHA or Greifelt Case, held from October 10, 1947 to March 10, 1948. The tribunals condemned Nazi use of abortion as a war
crime and crime against humanity.
(In its summation of the RuSHA Case theprosecution had even strongly implied that two Nazi laws of the 1930s legalizing the practice, and a Weimar law of the 1920s liberalizing the practice, should not have been passed.
[The Tribunal stated: "The acts and conduct as substantially charged in
the indictment [encouraging and compelling abortions] constitute crimes
against humanity ... and ... war crimes." (See Trials of War Criminals
before the Nürnberg Military Tribunals, October, 1946-April, 1949, vols. IVV.)]

It seems, the attitude of some hasn't changed within the 60 years since those days.

0 Replies

Mr. Walter Hinteler( Thank you. Mr. Hinteler) provides a fine bit of information that one must view when discussing Abortion.

Note:

I. The Case Against Abortion / I. Historical / 1. Crimes Against Humanity

History teaches us nothing if it doesn't teach us that human beings have a great capacity for abusing other human beings. When this abuse is severe enough, and moves beyond the mistreatment of a few individuals, we call it a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity generally refer to any large-scale atrocity committed against a group of innocent human beings. They are not crimes of passion, they are crimes of precision. They are not the result of accidental, momentary impulses, they are thought out and rationalized. The scale of such crimes cannot be carried out by individuals. They require the cooperation and consent of many, many people, and this is exactly what history shows us. The most notorious example, of course, is the Jewish Holocaust, in which six million European Jews were executed for their racial heritage.
In 1943, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer, coined the term "genocide" in an effort to more specifically describe this Nazi attempt to annihilate whole people groups. The word "genocide" combines the Greek word for race (geno) with the Latin word for killing (cide). The Nuremberg trials, which concluded in 1946, used the term "genocide" in their indictment against top Nazi officials who were there convicted for "crimes against humanity". In 1948, the United Nations officially made genocide an international crime at the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Convention defined genocide as any of a series of acts designed to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." The acts listed include among others, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group or forcibly transferring children out of the group.

Since then, the term "genocide" has been applied to many other historic and contemporary crimes against humanity. In some instances, such as Pol Pot's Cambodian genocide, the victims have been targeted for non-racial reasons. This broadening definition of genocide is reflected in Webster's New World Encyclopedia:

gen·o·cide - n.

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable.

Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992

Such definition, in fact, is broad enough to include abortion, and some pro-life groups have made a compelling case that abortion is genocide. Abortion is certainly deliberate and systematic. There is nearly one abortion for every two live births in America. Abortions are performed in a vast network of clinics around the country, almost 4,000 a day, 1.3 million a year, and more than 40 million since abortion was legalized in 1973. Furthermore, abortion targets a very specific group of human beings: unwanted, unborn children, a victim class that is defined by the pro-abortion mantra, "Every child, a Wanted Child". Their "final solution" for unwanted, unborn children is abortion.

While the appropriateness of calling abortion "genocide" depends on what definition of genocide you are using, it is a plain and simple fact that abortion is the systematic destruction of millions of human beings. Genocide or not, abortion, like the Jewish Holocaust and like the mistreatment of native and African-Americans, is a phenomena which dehumanizes a group of human beings so as to justify their elimination. This nation, and the world as a whole, has a sad legacy of dehumanizing people who have something we want or get in our way.

The reason that some people take such offense at comparing abortion to past crimes against humanity is the same reason that the white establishment of America was scandalized when Dr. Martin Luther King compared the abuse of black Americans to the Holocaust. It is easy to condemn crimes that are far away (either by distance or time), it is much harder to condemn them when they sit right in your back yard. Abortion supporters are infuriated at the notion that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust because they incessantly argue that the unborn aren't people. This is exactly the same argument that is always made to justify crimes against humanity. They're not really people. This is what Hitler said. This is what America said when it used to count blacks as 3/5 of a person. If we can't compare atrocities past to atrocities present, then the term "never again" loses all it's meaning.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Furthermore, abortion targets a very specific group of human beings: unwanted, unborn children, ... ...

That's interesting. What do condoms, NFP etc target?

BernardR wrote:

While the appropriateness of calling abortion "genocide" depends on what definition of genocide you are using, it is a plain and simple fact that abortion is the systematic destruction of millions of human beings. Genocide or not, abortion, like the Jewish Holocaust and like the mistreatment of native and African-Americans, is a phenomena which dehumanizes a group of human beings so as to justify their elimination. This nation, and the world as a whole, has a sad legacy of dehumanizing people who have something we want or get in our way.

The reason that some people take such offense at comparing abortion to past crimes against humanity is the same reason that the white establishment of America was scandalized when Dr. Martin Luther King compared the abuse of black Americans to the Holocaust. It is easy to condemn crimes that are far away (either by distance or time), it is much harder to condemn them when they sit right in your back yard. Abortion supporters are infuriated at the notion that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust because they incessantly argue that the unborn aren't people. This is exactly the same argument that is always made to justify crimes against humanity. They're not really people. This is what Hitler said. This is what America said when it used to count blacks as 3/5 of a person. If we can't compare atrocities past to atrocities present, then the term "never again" loses all it's meaning.

So you compare those persons, who do/did abort and those, who promote abortion in the one way or the other to butchers in the concentration camps.

That's not only interesting - that is perverse:

Quote:

Main Entry: per·verse
Etymology: Middle English pervers, from Latin perversus, from past participle of pervertere to turn the wrong way, destroy, corrupt, pervert -- more at PERVERT
1 a : turned away from what is right or good : CORRUPT, WICKED <the> b : contrary to accepted standards or practice : INCORRECT, IMPROPER <felt>
5 a : relating to, characterized by, or resulting from a perverted disposition or inclination <the> b : suffering from a perversion

source: "perverse." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (7 Jun. 2006).

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

They [anti-abortion centers which advertise under Abortion Services] are advising on abortions you just don't agree with what they advise.

Right. And if a car dealer takes out a want ad in the paper that says, "Interested in a Chevy? Come on down to Smith's Car World!" and it turns out that Smith's Car World is a Ford dealer and doesn't sell Chevies at all, that is not fraud?

Because after all, advice is part of the car buying process, and Smith is merely advising people looking to buy a Chevy on alternatives to Chevrolet. Smith is providing a service related to Chevy buying, therefore his ad is not fraudulent, according to you?

Of course what Smith is doing is fraudulent, and he likely would be prosecuted, fined, (at least), and forced to remove the ad immediately. Yet all of the arguments used to claim Smith was not fraudulent have been advanced by you and Okie to say that anti-abortion centers which advertise under Abortion Services are not fraudulent. The same arguments.

Smith is committing fraud when he places his ad for people interested in Chevies, the same way anti-abortion centers are committing fraud when they advertise under Abortion Services.

Baldimo wrote:

I know you keep saying that you don't want them [anti-abortion centers] to be banned but I think you really do. Once again they offer advice just not the advice you want them to offer.

You sound like Smith, the fraudulent Ford dealer, when he argues before the judge, "Your Honor, all these complaining Chevrolet dealers are claiming they just want me to change my ad, but what they really want to do is drive me out of business. Chevrolet has an anti-Ford agenda and these complaints are just part of an overall campaign on Chevy's part to drive all alternatives to Chevrolet out of existence!"

Ridiculous? Of course. But the point is that no place has the right to seemingly advertise one thing when in fact is supplies something completely opposite.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:
I know you keep saying that you don't want them [anti-abortion centers] to be banned but I think you really do. Once again they offer advice just not the advice you want them to offer.

Keltic Wizard is for freedom of speech for everyone except, as Baldimo wrote, the groups that offer the advice that Keltic Wizard doesn't want offered.

I have a solution. This problem should be referred to the USSC for adjudication. If it is truly A CRIME THAT THE ANTI-ABORTION CENTERS ARE COMMITTING OR IF IT IS SOMEHOW AGAINST THE LAW, THERE SHOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE RESTRAINING ORDER.

There is not, so I am very much afraid the most that can be done against these Anti_Abortion sites is useless fulmination by postes like Keltic Wizard.

0 Replies

You know, Mr. Walter Hinteler, My comparisons, to some people may seem perverse.Perhaps they are but I am of the opinion that real perversity that is occurring in Europe is the fact that many countries- Italy, Spain, Germany and Russia are not having enough children being born. In fact, Mr. Putin has called the Russian problem of being ZPG as the major problem in Russia. No wonder the German Unemployment Rate is 11%. Most of those must be obstetricians>

0 Replies

The abortion issue really boils down to this: we want to have sex all we want anytime we want with anyone we want and if it results in unwanted offspring, our pleasure means more than even they. Our pleasure means more than even our own unborn children. Very sick society indeed.

0 Replies

Here's a news flash for you Okie: it's none of your business how a woman gets pregnant. Women have been getting unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time. The Supreme Court has ruled that she has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

These anti-choice centers are set up to deceive. If you ask most people if it is alright to purposely deceive in advertising, they would say no. But let the Right use deception to carry out their anti-choice crusade, and suddenly deception becomes a beautiful thing.

These centers are engaging in false advertising, and what they do should be made illegal.

0 Replies

Yes, Okie- These anti-abortion centers have been set up to deceive, says Keltic Wizard. But Keltic Wizard cannot explain that if they have been set up to deceive and they, in some way, violate the Supreme Court's finding in Roe Vs. Wade, exactly why they haven't been closed.

If they are in violation of Roe Vs. Wade. they should be closed.

But Celtic Wizard knows that they cannot be closed since there is freedom of speech involved.

Baldimo wrote:
I know you keep saying that you don't want them [anti-abortion centers] to be banned but I think you really do. Once again they offer advice just not the advice you want them to offer.

Keltic Wizard is for freedom of speech for everyone except, as Baldimo wrote, the groups that offer the advice that Keltic Wizard doesn't want offered.

I have a solution. This problem should be referred to the USSC for adjudication. If it is truly A CRIME THAT THE ANTI-ABORTION CENTERS ARE COMMITTING OR IF IT IS SOMEHOW AGAINST THE LAW, THERE SHOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE RESTRAINING ORDER.

0 Replies

More blather from the Right struggling to justify deception in their anti-choice crusade.

Are these centers presenting what they do honestly? Clearly not.

Is deceptive advertising alright? Most people would say no.

Most scams started off as being within the law. When lawmakers realized these scams were deceptive, they passed laws against them to make them illegal.

These centers are a scam. If there is no present law against them-as indeed many scams had no laws against them when they started-then laws should be passed to make these anti-choice scam centers illegal.

The public has the right to be protected against deceptive advertising, whether from a Ford dealer masquerading as a Chevy dealer, or an anti-abortion center listing itself under Abortion Services in the newspaper or phone book.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know