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

IF the public deserves to be protected against deceptive advertising, and if the Anti-Abortion centers are "deceptive advertising", where are the ACLU law suits? NOWHERE--

Keltic Wizard still does not understand that the reason no one will try to call the anti-abortion centers "deceptive advertising" is that judges would throw out lawsuits that would try to close those centers in a heartbeat. What Keltic Wizard does not realize is that a country that protects free speech to the extent that it allows the racist Farrakhan to spout his radical poison, will not shut down anti-abortion centers.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Here's a news flash for you Okie: it's none of your business how a woman gets pregnant.

Did I ever say it was my business? Likewise it is none of your business what kind of abortion services someone might wish to provide a woman. If those abortion services happen to be counseling services in regard to obtaining an abortion, what business is it of yours?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

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.

That is your post, Okie, and you made it clear that you look down on women who have unwanted pregnancies. Clearly, you are passing judgment on these women, which certainly qualifies as "making it your business".

Behind the mask of the seemingly kindly pro-lifer lies the reality of the anti-choice movement-the right of men to to pass judgment on women for their personal and legal choices.

That's really what the anti-choice movement has been about from the beginning. And they have made it clear that they don't mind using outright deception to advance their aims.

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard missed this. He did not rebut it!

IF the public deserves to be protected against deceptive advertising, and if the Anti-Abortion centers are "deceptive advertising", where are the ACLU law suits? NOWHERE--

Keltic Wizard still does not understand that the reason no one will try to call the anti-abortion centers "deceptive advertising" is that judges would throw out lawsuits that would try to close those centers in a heartbeat. What Keltic Wizard does not realize is that a country that protects free speech to the extent that it allows the racist Farrakhan to spout his radical poison, will not shut down anti-abortion centers.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
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.

That is your post, Okie, and you made it clear that you look down on women who have unwanted pregnancies. Clearly, you are passing judgment on these women, which certainly qualifies as "making it your business".

Behind the mask of the seemingly kindly pro-lifer lies the reality of the anti-choice movement-the right of men to to pass judgment on women for their personal and legal choices.

That's really what the anti-choice movement has been about from the beginning. And they have made it clear that they don't mind using outright deception to advance their aims.

keltic, if I think burglary is wrong, I am passing judgement. If I think abortion is wrong, I am passing judgement on the act of abortion. If it is legal, so be it. I don't have to agree with it. Last I checked, we still have freedom of thought in this country. The women that do it, I have compassion for, I do not hate them or look down on them. I think they are mis-guided, and I am sorry that they are left to live with what they did. I strongly believe it is far more loving and compassionate to counsel a woman not to abort, to kill her own offspring. What is more cruel than killing the most defenseless of all? I do not wish to see an unborn child die, nor do I wish to see a mother suffer the burden of guilt the rest of her life for killing her own child. This is often what happens.

In contrast, I cannot fathom the attutude of pro-abortionists that apparently relish the idea of people aborting their offspring, all in the name of having unlimited sexual pleasure without any responsibility to go with it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The women that do it [abortion], I have compassion for, I do not hate them or look down on them.

Nonsense. These are your own words.

okie wrote:

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.

You can claim all you want that this sentence is not meant to look down on anyone, but it will not change the fact that it means you do exactly that.

How a woman becomes pregnant is none of your business. You claim to agree, but clearly you are holding women with unwanted pregnanies up to ridicule in an attempt to justify deceiving them into entering an anti-abortion cneter unknowingly. Your rationale is based upon the idea that if the woman really should not have become pregnant in the first place, a little deception is all right on your part to try to steer her away from an abortion.

The woman has the right to make an informed choice. For a choice to be informed, fraud and misrepresentation must be eliminated from the picture. Yet you and the other anti-choice activists will justify outright deception-advertising a place full of nothing but anti-abortion advocates as a place which provides "Abortion Services".

A woman has the right to seek out whatever kind of counseling she wants. But "counselors" who misrepresent themselves as providing Abortion Services when in fact they have no ability or intention to help her get the abortion she has the right to seek are practicing fraud, and the practice should be made illegal.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

You can claim all you want that this sentence is not meant to look down on anyone, but it will not change the fact that it means you do exactly that.

How a woman becomes pregnant is none of your business. You claim to agree, but clearly you are holding women with unwanted pregnanies up to ridicule in an attempt to justify deceiving them into entering an anti-abortion cneter unknowingly. Your rationale is based upon the idea that if the woman really should not have become pregnant in the first place, a little deception is all right on your part to try to steer her away from an abortion.

You apparently cannot separate an action from an individual. Condemning an action does not mean you hate the person that took the action. If you have children or had them, you obviously would understand this, as no child ever does everything right. You love your children but condemn their wrong actions. You appeal to their conscience to choose correctly, for their own happiness and well being. You do not condemn them or look down on them.

I simply want to see pregnant women sufficiently informed before they make a choice on abortion. An innocent life could be saved, and the mother will not have to live with guilt the rest of her life. Counseling is part of the service that can facilitate her choice. As long as abortion is legal, abortion is ultimately her choice. This is also a free country, and I have a right to condemn her choice. That does not indicate that I hate the person.

Liberals nowadays seem to be having trouble with the concept that if I think something is wrong, I hate the person that did it. There is something very haywire with this thinking. They therefore demand that I approve of their actions even if it disregards my personal freedom of thought.

0 Replies

Okie--I'll slam the door on Mr. Keltic Wizard--

Editorial from Chicago Tribune--CAPS ARE MINE.

HEADLINE-

No dissenters need apply?

quote

"More recently some board members criticized the ACLU for ENDORSING LEGISLATION THA TOUWLD REGULATE ADVERTISING BY PRO-LIFE COUNSELING CENTERS THAT CLIAM TO PROVIDE 'ABORTION SERVICES' BUT ACTUALLY TRY TO TALK WOMEN INTO CONTINUING THEIR PREGNANCIES"

T H A T S E E M S TO ME A VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF
G O V E R N M E N T B E I N G T H E L A N G U A G E P O L I C E

Board Member Wendy Kaminer told the New York Sun.

Kaminer's position would seem to go right to the CL in ACLU.

There is an irresistible irony in all this- the CHAMPIONS OF FREE SPEECH, debating a self imposed gag order. It doesn't seem likely to books public support or fund raising if the ACLU assumes a new role....of language police."

end of quote

You see, Okie, the ACLU is so left wing, that it will subvert its own principles--the principle enshrined in the first admendment--Freedom of Speech!

It is up to Mr. Keltic Wizard to PROVE that the pro-life counseling services are NOT able to exercise their FREE SPEECH rights on this issue.

Barring any legislation, WHICH, WOUL D, OF COURSE, BE SHOT DOWN IMMEDIATELY BY ANY COURT, Keltic WIzard can just whistle.

Those anti-abortion centers will continue, Okie, no matter how much steam comes out of the ears of people like Keltic Wizard.

0 Replies

All correct Bernard.

Bernard, have you ever noticed the personality trait of communists and dictators. They use freedom and elections to gain power, then once in office, they end all elections and freedom. The ACLU was started by a communist wasn't it? At least thats what I've been told. So what else would you expect? And something else I've noticed about such organizations. The names are always nice sounding words, like "Civil Liberties." They love riding the coat tails of freedom and liberty, until they are in power and do not wish to give the power up. They will resort to almost anything to retain it, including killing a few million people. Stalin and Pol Pot a couple of examples that come to mind. Oh, how about the "Peoples Republic of China?" It should have been named "Maos Republic of China."

Sorry to go on a tangent but just pointing out the hypocrisy of leftists. The main point, which you illustrate so clearly Bernard, is that the ACLU love to advertise their agenda as civil liberties, but they are really not about that at all.

0 Replies

I am surprised there is still an argument on the legality of abortion. The Fourth Amendment states that the government may not interfere with a woman's right to be secure in her person, property, AND BODY.

Further, there is no argument that the government may impose punishment for false advertising. Thus, the government may impose fines. If the government won't act, a suit for mandamus may be appropriate.

0 Replies

Being secure in your body obviously has nothing to do with abortion.

0 Replies

Okie, but why? Are you saying that the Bill of Rights is no longer valid?

0 Replies

No. You are mis-applying and mis-interpreting the Fourth Amendment. It is addressing unreasonable searches and seizures. It has nothing to do with abortion.

0 Replies

There is no serious question that the word "secure" means privacy. Thus, a woman with the right to be secure in her person is immune from a govt. prohibition on abortion.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

There is no serious question that the word "secure" means privacy. Thus, a woman with the right to be secure in her person is immune from a govt. prohibition on abortion.

So the government has no right to prohibit crimes committed as long as they are committed in private? Lay abortion to the side for a moment. This question is in regard to other crimes.

0 Replies

We were discussing abortion (or flag burning), not "other crimes."

I guess I am not following you. Sorry!

0 Replies

Sorry to get too deep into logic. To repeat in different words, if privacy was supreme and ruled the day, how come all kinds of things done in private can possibly be prosecuted as crimes, seeing the Fourth Amendment protects privacy according to you?

0 Replies

The amendment doesn't refer to "things done in private." It says that , with respect to government action, one may be secure (have privacy) in one's papers, property, and person. The amendment refers to more than searches.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The amendment doesn't refer to "things done in private."

Then you agree that the act of abortion in private is not covered by the Fourth Amendment. We agree.

0 Replies

No, the amendment just says that the government cannot invade your privacy regarding your person, papers, or property. It doesn't address crimes committed in private.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know